Chondral Resurfacing and High Tibial Osteotomy in the Varus Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with degenerative knees and varus malalignment presents a difficult clinical problem. HYPOTHESIS: Combining a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy with the microfracture chondral resurfacing procedure is a viable treatment option. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. METHODS: A group of 38 consecutive patients (mean age, 51.3 years; range, 34 to 72 years; 29 men and 10 women) with varus malalignment and chondral lesions who were treated with chondral resurfacing (an abrasion and microfracture technique) combined with a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. All patients had >5 degrees of varus malalignment. Patients were evaluated preoperatively with the Lysholm and Western Ontario & McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index scoring systems and at a minimum of 2 years follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 38 patients (87%) were available for 2-year follow-up (average, 45 months; range, 24 to 80 months). Lysholm scores improved from a preoperative score of 43.5 to 78.0 at follow-up; Western Ontario & McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores improved from 45.8 to 16.2. The average Tegner score was 5.0. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy with the microfracture chondral resurfacing procedure in the varus knee is an effective method of decreasing pain and increasing function at a minimum of 2 years follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".