Realignment osteotomy of the knee allows for return to work and sport activities in the young athletic population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate return to work and sport rates of young athletic patients following knee osteotomy, including the highest level of sports participation and satisfaction with activities. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of patients of age 45 years or younger who underwent realignment osteotomy of the knee between 2005 and 2015. Data concerning work activities, sports participation and satisfaction were collected by a survey including the modified Naal and Weiss questionnaires, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) of satisfaction and Net Promoter Score (NPS). Results Analysis of data from 60 patients with a median age of 38 (15–45) was performed. Of those 60 patients, 95% returned to sports following surgery, of whom 74% could return to their main preinjury sport or to a different sport of higher impact. The main preoperative sport types involved 65% high-impact, 23% intermediate-impact and 12% low-impact activities. The highest level of sport participation preoperatively was 13% professional, 7% varsity and 80% amateur (58% competitive, 42% recreational). Postoperatively 5% returned to professional level, 4% varsity and 91% amateur (14% competitive, 86% recreational), and at follow-up 22% of patients had retired from sports. At follow-up 88% of patients were still working, with 61% at the same activity level and 12% at a higher level than before surgery. The median NRS satisfaction score with activities in general was 6 (0–10), and with activities of daily living, work and leisure time 9 (0–10), 7 (0–10) and 6 (0–10), respectively. The main reasons for dissatisfaction were persisting knee pain (67%) and lack of range of motion (29%). The NPS was 14, indicating that patients would recommend the surgery to friends or family. Conclusion Young athletes can return to work and sport activities following realignment osteotomy of the knee. Although their levels of sports participation significantly decreased and satisfaction with their activity level was limited, we disagree with the opinion that a knee osteotomy directly leads to the end of an athlete's sporting career. Level of evidence Level III, prospective cohort study.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".