High Rates of Return to Sports Activities and Work After Osteotomies Around the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteotomies are proven treatment options, especially in younger patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, for certain cases of chronic knee instability, or as concomitant treatment for meniscal repair or transplantation surgery. Presumably, these patients wish to stay active. Data on whether these patients return to sport (RTS) activities and return to work (RTW) are scarce. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to systematically review (1) the extent to which patients can RTS and RTW after knee osteotomy and (2) the time to RTS and RTW. METHODS: We systematically searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Two authors screened and extracted data, including patient demographics, surgical technique, pre- and postoperative sports and work activities, and confounding factors. Two authors assessed methodological quality. Data on pre- and postoperative participation in sports and work were pooled. RESULTS: We included 26 studies, involving 1321 patients (69% male). Mean age varied between 27 and 62 years, and mean follow-up was 4.8 years. The overall risk of bias was low in seven studies, moderate in ten studies, and high in nine studies. RTS was reported in 18 studies and mean RTS was 85%. Reported RTS in studies with a low risk of bias was 82%. No studies reported time to RTS. RTW was reported in 14 studies; mean RTW was 85%. Reported RTW in studies with a low risk of bias was 80%. Time to RTW varied from 10 to 22 weeks. Lastly, only 15 studies adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSION: Eight out of ten patients returned to sport and work after knee osteotomy. No data were available on time to RTS. A trend toward performing lower-impact sports was observed. Time to RTW varied from 10 to 22 weeks, and almost all patients returned to the same or a higher workload.
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 | 0.020 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".