Change in Posterior Tibial Slope After Open-Wedge and Closed-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether open- or closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) results in significant changes in posterior tibial slope, with no consensus on the magnitude of such changes. Furthermore, methods of measuring posterior tibial slope differ among studies. This meta-analysis was therefore designed to evaluate whether posterior tibial slope increases after open-wedge HTO and decreases after closed-wedge HTO and to quantify the magnitudes of the slope changes after open- and closed-wedge HTO using various methods of measuring posterior tibial slope. HYPOTHESIS: Posterior tibial slope increases after open-wedge and decreases after closed-wedge HTO. The magnitude of change is similar for the 2 methods, and the value obtained for posterior tibial slope change is affected by the method of measurement. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: Multiple comprehensive databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed, were searched for studies that evaluated the posterior slope of the proximal tibia in patients who had undergone open- and/or closed-wedge HTO. Studies were included that compared pre- and postoperative posterior tibial slopes, regardless of measurement method, including anterior and posterior tibial cortex or tibial shaft axis as a reference line, in patients who underwent open- or closed-wedge HTO. The quality of each included study was appraised with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data, which included subgroups of 3 methods, showed that posterior tibial slope increased 2.02° (95% CI, 2.66° to 1.38°; P = .005) after open-wedge HTO and decreased 2.35° (95% CI, 1.38° to 3.32°; P < .001) after closed-wedge HTO. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirmed that posterior tibial slope increased after open-wedge HTO and decreased after closed-wedge HTO when the results of a variety of measurement methods were pooled. The magnitude of change after open- and closed-wedge HTO was similar and small (approximately 2°), suggesting that both osteotomy techniques may have little effect on the biomechanics of the cruciate ligaments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".