Return to Work and Sport Following High Tibial Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine (1) timelines for return to sport and work following high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and (2) whether patients return to sport and work at levels similar to preoperative levels. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed). Two reviewers independently screened the results for relevant articles. Data regarding patient demographics, indications, surgical technique, return to work and sport, and complication and failure rates were abstracted from eligible studies. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, involving 1,189 patients (64% male, 21% female, 15% unspecified) and 1,224 knees. Mean age was 46.2 years (range, 16 to 80 years). Opening-wedge HTO was most commonly used, followed by closing-wedge HTO and hemicallotasis. Mean follow-up was 65.4 months (range, 8 to 253 months). Overall, 87.2% of patients returned to sport postoperatively, and 78.6% returned at an equal or greater level. Among competitive athletes, 54% returned to competition. Overall, 84.5% of patients returned to work postoperatively, and 65.5% returned at an equal or greater level. Approximately 90% of patients who returned to work or sport did so within 1 year. The complication rate was 5.8%, with infection being the most common complication; 7.0% of patients progressed to a total knee arthroplasty at a mean of 6.7 years (range, 0.8 to 15 years) following HTO. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing HTO return to sport and work, and most return within 1 year of the operation. Most patients return to sport at a level equal to or greater than the preoperative level. Approximately two-thirds of patients return to an equal or greater level of physical work. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".