MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136877998 · doi:10.1177/107110070302401202

Kinematic Changes After Fusion and Total Replacement of the Ankle Part 1: Range of Motion

2003· article· en· W2136877998 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKinematicsRange of motionAnkleAnkle replacementFusionRange (aeronautics)Motion (physics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationOrthodonticsPhysical therapySurgeryArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine how closely the present designs of ankle prostheses mimic the unique requirements of the foot and ankle. The three-dimensional range of motion (ROM) of the ankle joint complex, before and after ankle arthrodesis and after implantation of three currently used total ankle prostheses, was investigated. METHODS: The three-dimensional ROM was determined in six fresh-frozen cadaver leg specimens using a 6-df device with an axial load of 200 N and a four-camera high-speed video system. A moment of 100 Nm was applied to the footplate to determine the ROM in the sagittal (dorsiflexion and plantarflexion) and frontal (inversion and eversion) planes. The same moment was applied to the tibia to determine the ROM for the internal and external tibial rotation. The measurements were performed for the normal ankle, the fused ankle, and the AGILITY, HINTEGRA, and S.T.A.R. prostheses. RESULTS: Compared to the normal condition, the ROM for dorsiflexion and plantarflexion was changed for all surgical interventions. The changes were highest for the ankle arthrodesis. The changes due to the prostheses were significantly less than the changes due to ankle arthrodesis. Compared to the normal condition, the total ROM for inversion/eversion was slightly decreased by the fused ankle and not changed by the three-component prostheses (HINTEGRA, S.T.A.R.). However, the ROM for inversion/eversion was significantly higher for the two-component prosthesis, AGILITY. The ROM for internal and external tibial rotation was not altered by the AGILITY and HINTEGRA ankle, but it was significantly reduced by the ankle arthrodesis. S.T.A.R. showed a significant shift of the total ROM toward internal tibial rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The three tested ankle joint prostheses changed the ROM of the ankle joint complex less than ankle fusion did. Total ankle prostheses were shown to replicate normal joint ROM closely. However, ankle arthrodesis was found to reduce the ROM substantially in all three planes: the sagittal, frontal, and horizontal planes. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: With respect to the ROM, total ankle replacement changes the natural ankle joint condition less than ankle arthrodesis, which reduces the ROM in all three planes and might increase stress in adjacent structures. The prosthesis that replicated the normal ankle joint ROM best was the one with the most anatomical design.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it