Comparative Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients with Kissing Lesions and Non-Kissing Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: High Outerbridge grade lesions of the articular cartilage have been associated with poor outcomes of high tibial osteotomy (HTO). However, there has been no report on the efficacy of HTO in the presence of kissing lesions. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of HTO between kissing lesion and non-kissing lesion groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis and varus deformity treated with HTO between 2007 and 2012, 21 cases with kissing lesions and 22 cases without kissing lesions were selected. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm knee scoring scale score, visual analogue scale score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities score, and Tegner activity score. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using the femoral-tibial angle, mechanical axis deviation, medial proximal tibial angle, posterior tibial slope angle, and joint space width. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were improved in both groups from the postoperative assessment to the final follow-up, which showed no statistically significant difference between groups at the final follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed with regard to radiographic assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Since both groups showed favorable short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, HTO might be an alternative treatment option for degenerative osteoarthritis with kissing lesions in relatively young 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".