MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104271000 · doi:10.1177/2473011420s00381

The Demographics of Total Ankle Replacement in the USA: A Study of 21,222 Cases Undergoing Pre- Operative CT Scan-Based Planning

2020· article· en· W3104271000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Murray J. Penner, Gregory C. Berlet, Ricardo Calvo, Eric Suero Molina, David Reynolds, Paul Stemniski, W. Hodges Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkle replacementAnkleCohortDeformityValgus deformityEpidemiologyDemographicstar (computing)SurgeryDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Category: Ankle; Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: To understand the role of total ankle replacement (TAR) in treating the spectrum of arthritis of the ankle, a clear understanding of the epidemiology of ankle arthritis is required. The largest pools of epidemiologic data available to date come from international registries. In the USA, the largest market for TAR, where an estimated 10,000 TARs are implanted per year, the largest pool of demographic data on patients undergoing TAR is comprised of just 805 cases collected over 6 years. With the advent of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), detailed demographic and CT scan data can now be collected. These data on 21,222 cases undergoing CT scan-based PSI planning were reviewed to define the demographics of a very large cohort of TAR patients. Methods: The cohort contained 21,222 patients from the USA and Canada, with surgery dates from 2012 - 2019. Data analysed included deformity measures, presence of existing hardware and joint fusion status. To date, a subset sample of 4800 cases was available for analysis. Extraction is ongoing and data for the full cohort will soon be available. This subset described cases with surgery dates ranging from November 2015 through May 2019. Summary statistics to describe age, gender, ankle size, and tibio- talar deformity were calculated. Of the 4800 patients analyzed, 53% were male. Mean age 63.6 years (SD 10.4) (Age distribution in Figure 1a). The deformity distribution is shown in Figure 1b, with varus more common than valgus. The mean degree of deformity increased with every decade of patient age from 6.1° (age 30-39) to 9.2° (age 80-89), and over time from 9.3°(2016) to 11.8° (2019) [in stemmed- implant cases]. Results: Tibia size varied with gender. Females ranged between 34-38mm in 85% of cases; males from 41-48mm in 79%. Of 21,222 cases, 5964 (28%) had adjacent hardware (screws, etc) in situ and pre-existing ankle fusions were present in 517 (2.4%), increasing from 1.2% in 2013 to 2.9% in 2019.The mean age of TAR patients is similar to that reported in smaller series. Tibia size was significantly greater in males than females, a finding not previously reported in demographic literature. In contrast to knee arthritis, intra-articular deformity >5° is common, present in > 51% of cases (varus > valgus). This is the first series to show the degree of deformity increases with age. Over time, TAR is being used in cases with greater deformity. Conclusion: Hardware is seen to be commonly present in TAR, increasing complexity. Conversion of fusion to TAR, while rare, is more common than existing literature suggests, with the rate increasing each year, suggesting this may be an increasingly important role for TAR in the future. This study presents the largest set of demographic data on TAR patients in the literature. The demographics of USA patients undergoing TAR are similar to those seen in non-USA registries. Deformity is common, increasing with age. The severity of deformity treated with TAR and conversion of fusion to TAR are increasing over time.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot & Ankle OrthopaedicsSame topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207