Medial Opening Wedge Proximal Tibial Osteotomy: Lessons Learned from a Series of 175 Consecutive Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a surgical procedure aimed at inhibiting the progression of osteoarthritis of the knee joint. The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing the functional outcome after opening wedge valgus HTO. METHODS: A total of 175 cases (155 patients) of varus-correcting high tibial open-wedge osteotomies using the Tomofix plate were reviewed retrospectively. Patients answered the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire and 4 survey follow-up questions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 76 of the 155 patients studied (84 of the 175 knees) completed the KOOS questionnaire, on average 3.1 years (SD 1.8 years) after the surgery. The median scores (with median absolute deviations [MAD]) for the KOOS pain, symptoms, daily activities, sports, and quality of life sections were, respectively, 76.4 (MAD 12.5), 75.0 (MAD 14.3), 85.3 (MAD 11.8), 50.0 (MAD 25.0), and 59.4 (MAD 21.9). No cases of nonunion were observed throughout the length of the study. Identified predictors of worse outcomes were higher weight and body mass index, limited knee flexion, genu varum and tibial varus of small magnitude, active smoking status at the time of surgery, further surgery for plate removal, and some grades of chondropathy in the patellofemoral, medial tibial, and femoral compartments. Patient gender, joint obliquity and over- or undercorrection were not associated with any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study shows good results following valgus HTO that are comparable to outcomes following total knee arthroplasty, reinforcing the option of HTO as a valid alternative for total knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".