Role of Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes to Predict Ankle Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are becoming common for measuring patient-centric outcomes in surgery. However, there is little known about the relationship between postoperatively collected patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to measure whether postoperative Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) values were associated with risk of revision among patients having ankle arthrodesis or total ankle arthroplasty for treatment of symptomatic end-stage ankle arthritis. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a longitudinal cohort of ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty patients. A single center recruited patients between 2003 and 2013 and follow-up was at least 4 years. Patients completed the AOS preoperatively and annually following surgery. An extended Cox regression model incorporating time-varying AOS values was used to model risk of failure. A total of 336 patients and 348 ankles were included, representing 139 ankle arthrodesis procedures and 209 total ankle arthroplasties. RESULTS: The median follow-up time for revisions was 8.2 years and 46 patients had a revision. Higher values of patients' AOS scores in the postoperative period were associated with a higher likelihood of revision (hazard ratio, 1.04 per 1-point increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.05). Ankle arthrodesis was associated with a reduced risk of revision compared with ankle fusion (hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.49). CONCLUSION: This study showed that persistent pain and poor function after fusion or replacement surgery, as measured by elevated values of the AOS, were associated with higher risk of further surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".