Arthroscopic Versus Open Ankle Arthrodesis: A Multicenter Comparative Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankle arthrodesis results in measurable improvements in terms of pain and function in patients with end-stage ankle arthritis. Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis has gained increasing popularity, with reports of shorter hospital stays, shorter time to solid fusion, and equivalent union rates when compared with open arthrodesis. However, there remains a lack of high-quality prospective data. METHODS: We evaluated the results of open and arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in a comparative case series of patients who were managed at two institutions and followed for two years. The primary outcome was the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale score, and secondary outcomes included the Short Form-36 physical and mental component scores, the length of hospital stay, and radiographic alignment. There were thirty patients in each group. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement in the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale score and the Short Form-36 physical component score at one and two years. There was significantly greater improvement in the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale score at one year and two years and shorter hospital stay in the arthroscopic arthrodesis group. Complications, surgical time, and radiographic alignment were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open and arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis were associated with significant improvement in terms of pain and function as measured with the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale score. Arthroscopic arthrodesis resulted in a shorter hospital stay and showed better outcomes at one and two years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".