Long-Term Functional Outcomes of Resected Tarsal Coalitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few long-term studies evaluating tarsal coalition resections. The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes following resection of calcaneonavicular (CN) and talocalcaneal (TC) bars and to determine the relationship between the extent of a coalition and the outcome of resection. METHODS: Patients younger than 18 years receiving resection for symptomatic tarsal coalition (1991-2004 inclusive) were eligible to participate. Follow-up evaluation included clinical examination to assess range of motion and self-reported functional outcome questionnaires. Two validated functional scales were used: the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Foot and Ankle Module, and the Foot Function Index (FFI). Twenty-four patients with 32 tarsal coalition resections (19 CN and 13 TC feet) were included in this study. For CN and TC patients, the mean age at the time of surgery was 11.8 ± 1.1 and 11.9 ± 2.5 years, and the mean age at follow-up was 27.1 ± 1.1 and 25.0 ± 2.5 years, respectively. RESULTS: Inversion and eversion were significantly less for TC feet when compared with CN (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively). No difference was noted between the CN and TC groups with respect to outcome scores. Furthermore, no association was noted between the size of TC coalition or hindfoot valgus angle with respect to outcome scores. CONCLUSION: Resected CN and TC bars behaved similarly in the long term in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Favorable results were attained when resections were performed on TC coalitions that were greater than 50% of the posterior facet and hindfoot valgus angles greater than 16 degrees. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".