A comparison of plate versus staple-and-cast fixation in maintaining femoral tibial alignment after valgus tibial osteotomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare 2 methods of fixation for maintenance of alignment during healing of valgus tibial osteotomies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart and radiographic review of valgus tibial osteotomy cases of staple fixation supplemented by a postoperative cast and of blade plate fixation for maintenance of femoral-tibial alignment during healing of the osteotomy. RESULTS: Both groups (staple-and-cast, n = 16; plate, n = 28) were similar in terms of age, preoperative alignment, extent of osteoarthritis and degree of intra-operative correction. Between-group differences in the maintenance of femoral-tibial alignment during healing were not significant. In both groups there was a strong correlation between degree of bone contact at the osteotomy site and maintenance of alignment (p < 0.005). In cases done with the plate, 90% of osteotomies with good or excellent bone contact maintained alignment during healing; with poor or fair bone contact, 75% had loss of alignment > 5 degrees during healing. There was a trend toward a greater incidence of delayed or non-union with plate fixation compared with staple fixation that did not reach statistical significance. All of these cases of delayed/non-union had loss of femoral-tibial alignment > 5 degrees during healing. CONCLUSION: As a result of this study, we have modified our surgical technique. We now use intra-operative fluoroscopy for optimization of bone contact, and we have reverted to the less invasive staple method for fixation of tibial osteotomies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".