Outcome after treatment of osteoarthritis with open-wedge high-tibial osteotomy with a plate: 2-year results of a Japanese cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This prospective multicenter study evaluated patient reported outcomes (PROs) in individuals undergoing medial open-wedge high-tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) with plate stabilization compared to conservative care or no treatment. METHODS: One hundred eighteen of 148 patients older than 40 years were elected for OWHTO with plate treatment. Thirty patients declined surgery and were followed as a conservative group. The primary outcome measure was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2 years. Secondary measures included Oxford knee score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, range of motion (ROM), joint space width (JSW), femorotibial angle (FTA), and weight-bearing line ratio (WBLR). RESULTS: Patient enrollment and baseline characteristics were heterogeneously distributed and led to group characteristics that were not comparable. Therefore, the comparison of the KOOS between the groups showing no differences must be treated with caution. In the OWHTO plate group, all PROs and the ROM significantly improved between baseline and 2-year follow-up. JSW remained stable in the OWHTO group. The FTA and WBLR significantly changed from a mean of 179.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): 178.7, 179.9) to 169.8 (95% CI: 169.2, 170.5) and from 23.1 (95% CI: 20.7, 25.5) to 62.4 (95% CI 59.0, 65.8), respectively. Treatment failure with conversion to total knee arthroplasty occurred in 1% of the OWHTO group; and in the conservative group, 10% converted to HTO or knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: OWHTO with plate leads to significant improvement of PROs and function 2 years after intervention and demonstrates reliable mechanical axis correction with subsequent shift of weight-bearing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".