MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949244722 · doi:10.1177/1071100719849084

Total Ankle Arthroplasty Survival and Risk Factors for Failure

2019· article· en· W2949244722 on OpenAlex
Mario I. Escudero, Vu Le, Maximiliano Barahona, Michael Symes, Kevin Wing, Alastair Younger, Andrea Veljkovic, Murray J. Penner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleCoronal planeAnkle replacementRadiographySurgeryImplantOsteoarthritisSagittal planeOrthopedic surgeryArthritisArthroplastyRetrospective cohort studyImplant failureInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is an increasingly selected treatment for end-stage ankle arthritis; however, failure and revision of the tibial and talar components remains an issue. Although multiple risk factors have been shown to contribute to early component revision, no study has looked at combining such risk factors into a predictive model that could potentially decrease revision rates and improve implant survival. This study aimed to develop a predictive model for TAA failure based on patient characteristics, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and immediate postoperative radiographs. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-site ankle arthritis database was conducted. All patients with current-generation ankle replacements including the Hintegra and Infinity prostheses implanted between 2004 and 2015 and with complete postoperative radiographs taken between 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively were included. Eight coronal and sagittal radiographic parameters were assessed and performed twice by 2 independent orthopedic surgeons on included TAAs. These radiographic parameters were then analyzed in association with patient demographics and PRO. Advanced statistical methods including survival analysis were used to construct a predictive model for TAA survival. A total of 107 patients were included and analyzed with a median clinical follow-up of 49 months (minimum 24 months). RESULTS: A predictive model was created, with 4 parameters identified as being statistically associated with TAA metal-component revision: diabetes mellitus, poor baseline Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) score, excessively dorsiflexed talar component, and an anteriorly/posteriorly translated talus relative to the tibial axis. The presence of 3 parameters predicted TAA survival of 0.60 whereas presence of all 4 parameters predicted survival of only 0.13 in the period studied. CONCLUSION: Our predictive model is based on a combination of patient factors, PROs, and radiographic TAA alignment. We believe it can be used by surgeons to predict failure in their TAA patients, thereby optimizing postoperative outcomes by improving patient selection and modifiable outcome-specific parameters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it