Total Ankle Arthroplasty Radiographic Alignment Comparison Between Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Standard Instrumentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several benefits are published supporting patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). This study seeks to determine if TAA with PSI yields different radiographic outcomes vs standard instrumentation (SI). METHODS: Sixty-seven primary TAA patients having surgery using PSI or SI between 2013 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed using weightbearing radiographs at 6-12 weeks postsurgery. Radiographic parameters analyzed were the medial distal tibia angle (MDTA), talar-tilt angle (TTA), anatomic sagittal distal tibia angle (aSDTA), lateral talar station (LTS), and talar component inclination angle (TCI). A comparison of the 2 groups for each radiologic parameter's distribution was performed using a nonparametric median test and Fisher exact test. Furthermore, TAAs with all radiographic measurements within acceptable limits were classified as "perfectly aligned." The rate of "perfectly aligned" TAAs between groups was compared using a Fisher exact test with a significance of .05. RESULTS: = .35). CONCLUSION: No significant radiographic alignment differences were found between PSI and SI implants. This study showed that both techniques achieve reproducible TAA radiographic coronal and sagittal alignment for the tibial component when performed by experienced surgeons. The talar component's sagittal alignment is similar whether or not PSI was used but is noticeably different from normal anatomic alignment by design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".