Serial Changes in the Joint Space Width and Joint Line Convergence Angle After Closed-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been little data concerning serial changes in the joint space width (JSW) and joint line convergence angle over the course of follow-up periods after closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy (CWHTO). PURPOSE: To evaluate serial changes in the JSW and joint line convergence angle after CWHTO. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 100 computer-assisted CWHTOs with a minimum follow-up period of 3 years (mean, 4.4 years) were analyzed. Clinically, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score was evaluated. Radiographically, the mechanical axis was measured preoperatively and postoperatively. The minimal JSW was measured as the shortest distance between the femur and the tibia. The convergence angle was measured as the angle between the tangent to the subchondral plates of the femoral condyle and the tibial plateau. Serial changes in these measurements were analyzed preoperatively; at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively; and at the final follow-up. The intraclass correlation coefficients for all measurements were greater than 0.8. RESULTS: The mean WOMAC score improved from 41.4 preoperatively to 14.9 at the final follow-up. The preoperative and postoperative mean mechanical axis was 8.1° varus and 1.6° valgus, respectively. The mean minimal JSW was 2.5, 2.9, 2.9, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.1 mm preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and the final follow-up, respectively ( P < .001). The mean convergence angle was 4.4°, 3.9°, 4.0°, 4.1°, 4.2°, and 4.3°, respectively, during the same time periods ( P = .068). CONCLUSION: Cartilage healing, as indicated by the JSW, and clinical improvement were maintained over the minimum 3-year follow-up after CWHTO. Cartilage pressure, as indicated by the convergence angle, remained unchanged after CWHTO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".