An Anatomic Study of the Percutaneous Endoscopically Assisted Calcaneal Osteotomy Technique to Correct Hindfoot Malalignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open calcaneal osteotomy using traditional methods is associated with complications such as sural nerve injury and potential wound healing problems. We hypothesized that by using novel minimally invasive techniques, these potential risks could be mitigated. This anatomic cadaveric study serves to assess the safety of percutaneous endoscopically assisted calcaneal osteotomy (PECO) compared to a traditional open osteotomy technique. METHODS: Anatomic safety of PECO was assessed using 8 fresh-frozen cadaver below-knee specimens. Lateral calcaneal nerve (LCN) damage was primarily noted and then secondly compared to a potential open surgical incision approach. RESULTS: Only 1 of 11 LCN branches (n = 8 limbs) was transected using PECO, compared to up to 8 of 10 LCN branches (n = 6 limbs) that potentially would have been injured during open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous endoscopically assisted calcaneal osteotomy is a minimally invasive technique that had fewer nerve injuries in this cadaveric model than traditional open surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Percutaneous endoscopically assisted calcaneal osteotomy due to its less invasive nature may result in fewer neurovascular injuries relative to an open procedure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".