Short‐term safety and efficacy of a novel high tibial osteotomy system: a case controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel iBalance Medial Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO) system in executing lower limb realignment in patients with symptomatic varus gonarthrosis. METHODS: A multicentre case series of iBalance medial opening wedge HTO was compared to an historic case-matched control series of HTO's performed using another implant. Subjects were prospectively observed at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Primary endpoints included the reporting of adverse events, weight-bearing status without pain and radiographic evidence of bony union. Secondary endpoints included maintenance of osteotomy correction angle, patient reported outcome (KOOS and SF-36) and gait analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-two consecutive patients were included in the iBalance group (mean age 49.7, 30-67; M:F, 20:12), paired with 32 control subjects (49.8, 35-66; 21:11). Three patients (9.4%) in the iBalance group experienced a complication requiring intervention versus one patient (3.1%) in the control group. No statistically significant differences were seen between groups in terms of time to weight bearing, radiographic union, implant stability or patient reported outcome. Gait analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in knee external adduction moment (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The iBalance medial opening wedge HTO system has been shown to be a safe, novel implant for use in proximal tibial osteotomy. This study shows that the iBalance medial opening wedge HTO system has an equivalent short-term safety and efficacy profile to the 2nd generation Puddu system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".