Open triple fusion versus TNC arthrodesis in the treatment of Mueller-Weiss disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mueller-Weiss disease is a rarely diagnosed deformity where the navicular bone undergoes spontaneous osteonecrosis in adults. Until now, there is no widely accepted operative treatment for this unusual disease. We aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between the open triple fusion and talonavicular-cuneiform arthrodesis for Mueller-Weiss disease of stage 4. METHODS: During the period from February 2012 to June 2016, 10 patients (11 feet) suffering from Mueller-Weiss disease of stage 4 were treated by the same senior surgeon. Among them, 5 patients (5 feet) were treated with open triple fusion and 5 patients (6 feet) were treated with talonavicular-cuneiform arthrodesis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score. Radiological results were assessed based on the X-ray and CT. Postoperative complications were also recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in AOFAS score between the two groups (p = 0.1 > 0.05). For the open triple fusion, the average AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score improved from 30.2 ± 3.27 preoperatively to 79 ± 3.81 at the last follow-up (p = 0.008). And for the talonavicular-cuneiform (TNC) arthrodesis, the average AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score improved from 33.2 ± 5.63 preoperatively to 86.2 ± 3.49 at the last follow-up (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Both triple fusion and TNC arthrodesis are reasonable methods for the treatment of Mueller-Weiss disease if properly used. It is crucial to use radiological assessment to evaluate the involved joints preoperatively and then chose the appropriate method to treat different patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".