INTERMEDIATE PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL REVIEW OF 113 SCANDANAVIA TOTAL ANKLE REPLACEMENTS (STAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The purpose of this clinical series is to prospectively review the mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR) performed at two academic Canadian University centres. Methods Between 1998 and 2005, 111 STAR were implanted into 98 patients at two Canadian centres. Prospective clinical and radiographic follow-up was performed. Validated and non-validated outcome questionnaires consisting of the AAOS foot and ankle questionnaire, AOFAS Hindfoot score, Foot Function Index (FFI), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) were completed. Sixty four patients were followed with these scores prospectively and 50 retrospectively. Both groups had prospective radiographic follow-up using measures described by Hintermann et al , and Wood et al . Results The average follow-up for both groups was 6.3 years (4.6-8.5 years). Of the 111 implanted STARs, 12 (11%) STARs had a metal component revision performed giving an overall survival of 89% (99) of the originally implanted metal components at the conclusion of the study. Thirty five patients (32%) had a re-operation performed during the follow-up period, 15 procedures (14%) were for replacement of fractured polyethylene liners. The sustained benefit across questionnaires from the STAR persisted to final follow up. Some evidence of osteolysis was present in 110/111 (99%) ankles at the final follow-up, more commonly around the talar component. No significant differences between the two centres in pre-operative or intra-operative data were identified. Conclusion The STAR, in the mid-term, shows acceptable survival and revision rates. There are, however, some concerning findings on radiographic follow-up. Further investigation and longer follow-up is required to substantiate these concerns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".