Comparison of navigated and conventional high tibial osteotomy for the treatment of osteoarthritic knees with varus deformity: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a usefully surgical procedure to correct the malalignment and delay the progression of osteoarthritis. It is still controversy whether navigation system can offer more accuracy of targeted alignment and achieve better clinical outcomes than conventional method. The purpose of present meta-analysis was to investigate whether navigation system was superior to conventional method with regard to clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHOD: The included studies compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes between navigated HTO group and conventional group. The clinical assessments were Lysholm Score, AKS Function Score and Arc of motion, and the radiographic outcomes were Mechanical axis (MA), Weight bearing line ratio (WBL), Outliers of alignment and Change in TPS used to evaluate alignment correction. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Downs and Black and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the study quality. RESULT: Sixteen studies were eligible in present meta-analysis, including thirteen studies concerning opening wedge HTO and three studies involving closing wedge HTO. Clinical outcomes were only reported in studies which used opening wedge HTO. No significant differences were observed in all clinical outcomes between navigated and conventional HTO. Regarding radiographic outcomes, no significant difference in WBL ratio was observed between navigated and conventional HTO. Patients undergoing navigated HTO were associated with significantly greater in MA and lower in Outliers of alignment compared with those undergoing conventional HTO. Compared with conventional HTO, increase in TPS was significantly lower in navigated HTO group using opening wedge HTO, but decrease in TPS was significantly greater in navigated HTO group using closing wedge HTO. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that navigated HTO offered more accuracy and precision of alignment correction, except WBL ratio. However, better clinical outcomes were not observed in navigation group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".