Influence of Preoperative Tibiotalar Alignment in the Coronal Plane on the Survival of Total Ankle Replacement: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether significant preoperative tibiotalar varus and valgus deformity should be contraindications for total ankle replacement (TAR). The primary aim of this systematic review was to analyze the influence of preoperative tibiotalar varus and valgus alignment on the survival of TAR. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE and Embase were searched from onset through September 2018. Two authors performed study selection and data extraction using a predefined data extraction tool. Implant survival in the alignment groups was reported as "revisions per 100 component years." Additional procedures, complications, and revisions were also reported. Assessment of the methodological quality was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: In total, 17 studies were considered eligible, in which a total of 1692 TARs were included from 1627 patients. The weighted mean follow-up was 52.4 (range, 1-147) months. The neutral alignment group included 711 TARs, the varus group included 545 TARs, and the valgus group included 332 TARs. Total revisions were 52, 37, and 36 in the preoperative tibiotalar neutral, varus, and valgus alignment groups, respectively. Revisions per 100 observed component years were 1.6, 1.7, and 2.5 in the preoperative tibiotalar neutral, varus, and valgus alignment groups, respectively. A total of 129 complications and 447 additional procedures were reported in 601 TARs. CONCLUSION: There was a strong indication that preoperative varus alignment in the coronal plane had a comparable implant survival to neutral alignment. Preoperative valgus alignment demonstrated a more negative influence on implant survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review.
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 | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".