The Infinity Total Ankle System: Early Clinical Results With 2- to 4-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study presents the first report of clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Infinity Total Ankle System (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN) with minimum 2-year follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first 67 consecutive patients who underwent primary total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) with the Infinity system at 2 North American sites between August 2013 and May 2015 were reviewed in a prospective, observational study. Demographic, radiographic, and functional outcome data were collected preoperatively, at 6 to 12 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: The overall implant survival rate was 97% (65 of 67 implants) at a mean follow-up of 35.4 months (27 to 47 months). Two cases underwent talar component revision for aseptic loosening. Six of the 67 cases (9%) required a nonrevision reoperation. Mean Foot Function Index and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale scores at latest follow-up improved from preoperative by 21.6 ( P < .0001) and 34.0 ( P < .0001), respectively. No radiographic loosening of any talar or tibial components was identified in the 65 nonrevised cases. CONCLUSION: Early clinical and radiographic outcomes with the Infinity TAA are promising and compare favorably to those reported for both fixed- and mobile-bearing third-generation TAA designs, even when used in cases with deformity and increased case complexity. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".