Applicability of a modified angular correction measurement method for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical potential of a new measurement technique for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) based on the medial cortex opening (MCO) associated with the Miniaci preoperative planning technique. METHODS: A retrospective review of 97 cases of valgus-producing HTO that were performed between 2008 and 2013, using the intra-operative fluoroscopic mechanical axis technique, was carried out. The Miniaci-based measurement technique was then used as a theoretical point of comparison with the intent to compare the disparity between postoperative and ideal lower extremity (LE) mechanical axis with the measured disparity between postoperative and Miniaci-based planned MCO. RESULTS: A significant correlation was observed for the comparison of the disparity between postoperative and Miniaci-based planned MCO and the disparity between postoperative and ideal LE mechanical axis (0.53, P = 0.001). This would suggest that the MCO associated with the Miniaci preoperative planning technique would have resulted in a better alignment had it been the chosen method to guide the amount of osteotomy opening. No significant correlation was observed between perioperative and postoperative LE mechanical axis (n.s.), the variable on which the current technique is based, confirming the poor reliability of the fluoroscopic mechanical axis technique. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a more accurate and precise technique of realizing the appropriate angular correction when performing a HTO, which could lead to better clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".