J. Leonard Goldner Award 2006: Total Ankle Replacement in Ankle Osteoarthritis: An Analysis of Muscle Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective study was to determine muscle rehabilitation in total ankle replacement (TAR) for unilateral severe ankle osteoarthritis. METHOD: Fifteen patients were assessed before and after TAR in 3-month intervals up to 1 year. Clinically, the pain score, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle score, ankle range of motion for dorsiflexion and plantarflexion (ROM DF/PF) and the calf circumference difference between the affected and contralateral healthy leg were measured. Radiographic assessment consisted of osteoarthritis grading abd evaluation of TAR loosening or migration. Biochemically, isometric maximal voluntary torque for ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion was measured simultaneously with surface electromyography (EMG; mean frequency and intensity) of the anterior tibial, medial gastrocnemius, soleus, and peroneus longus muscles. Data were compared to a group of 15 age-matched and gender-matched normal subjects. RESULTS: From preoperative to 12 months after TAR, improvement was noted in pain scores (from 6.8 to 0.8 points), AOFAS ankle scores (33.7 to 93.3 points), and ROM DF/PF significantly (16.0 to 31.0 degrees). The difference in mean calf circumference between legs decreased not significantly from 2.1 cm to 1.7 cm. The mean DF torque (16.4 to 23.1 Nm) and PF torque (15.8 to 21.6 Nm) of the affected ankle increased significantly. Compared to the contralateral healthy side, the mean EMG intensity recovered. CONCLUSION: TAR surgery improved muscle function (torque, EMG intensity) in osteoarthritic ankles. However, after 1 year, patients did not reach the level of the contralateral healthy leg, and the EMG frequency remained unchanged.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".