Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes After Anatomic Reconstruction of the Proximal Tibiofibular Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the most common presenting symptoms, clinical outcomes, and satisfaction after anatomic reconstruction of the proximal tibiofibular joint (PTFJ) with a free semitendinosus autograft. METHODS: Consecutive patients with minimum 2-year follow-up after isolated anatomic PTFJ reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were evaluated with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and Lysholm Knee Survey score along with a simple numeric patient satisfaction score (0-10, with 10 rated as perfect). Statistical analysis was performed with paired t tests, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: The study included 16 PTFJ reconstruction surgical procedures in 15 patients with isolated proximal tibiofibular instability verified by an examination under anesthesia (4 reconstructions in male patients vs 12 in female patients); the average age was 37.9 ± 14.6 years, with an average follow-up period of 43.2 months (range, 22-72 months). Of the 13 patients with complete follow-up, 11 (84.6%) were able to return to full desired activities and previous level of sport. Fourteen patients presented with concomitant common peroneal nerve pathology. Two patients had a subsequent complication. No patients needed an additional procedure. Significant (P < .05) improvement occurred across all WOMAC domains and in the WOMAC total score, from 31.4 (±14.9) preoperatively to 15.2 (±15.5) postoperatively. Lysholm Knee Survey scores significantly (P < .05) improved from 51.2 (±17.2) to 75.0 (±18.0). Patients' overall satisfaction was rated 7.6 (± 2.7) of 10. CONCLUSIONS: At an average follow-up of 43.2 months, anatomic PTFJ reconstruction for isolated PTFJ instability provided improvement in clinical outcomes, a return to activities, and a low risk of complications or need for additional procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PTFJ reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft is a promising surgical treatment that improves patient satisfaction when conservative treatment of PTFJ instability fails. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".