The early multicentre results of the rebalance total ankle replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We present the early results of 220 Rebalance Total Ankle Replacements performed in 6 centres in 4 different countries. Methods: The Rebalance Total Ankle Replacement is a new 3 component uncemented mobile bearing prosthesis with a surface coating of ‘bonemaster’ and an ‘e’ poly bearing. The prosthesis was released in a limited way in May 2011. Since then 220 replacements have been implanted in 218 patients in 6 centres in 4 different countries (UK, Sweden, Canada, Czech Republic). All the x-rays and case notes were reviewed.63 prostheses have a minimum follow up of 2 years. Outcome measures included revision of the prosthesis, and the incidence of progressive and non-progesssive radiolucent lines around the prosthesis. Results: 7 patients underwent revision or are awaiting revision of their prosthesis. Reasons for revision included loosening(2), infection(1), malposition(2), periprosthetic fracture(1), impingement(1). 9 patients had non-progressive radiolucent lines and 2 patients had progressive radiolucent lines. 1 patient with progressive radiolucent lines is waiting revision for suspected infection. 8 patients suffered fractures to the lateral malleolus and 4 to the medial malleolus. There were no cases of balloon osteolysis. 29 patients had pre-op AOFAS scores= 41(12–67). 21 had 1 year post-op AOFAS scores= 73.5(26–100). 12 had 2 year AOFAS scores= 75.5(50–100). Conclusion: The early results are encouraging and we believe support its wider use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".