Isolated Arthroscopic-Assisted Subtalar Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The subtalar joint has a complex anatomic function that includes inversion and eversion of the hindfoot, assisting in walking on uneven surfaces. Arthritis is the most common pathological condition affecting this joint and can require fusion. The surgery can be performed open or with arthroscopic assistance. This systematic review assesses articles written on the safety and efficacy of isolated arthroscopic subtalar fusion. METHODS: Using MEDLINE and Embase, we systematically reviewed articles published before May 21, 2020. RESULTS: Of 395 articles, 17 on a total of 395 patients (409 operations) were included in the review. The average duration of follow-up was 40.0 months (range, 3 to 105 months). Radiographic evidence of union was reported for 95.8% of cases at an average of 11.9 weeks (range, 6 to 56 weeks) postoperatively. Delayed union was reported in 1.0% of patients and nonunion, in 4.3% of patients. In the articles reporting patient satisfaction, including pain relief, 95.4% of patients had positive outcomes. Postoperative complications were reported in 64 patients (16.2%), including 37 (9.4%) with symptomatic implants, 11 (2.8%) with dysesthesia or neuropathic pain, and 3 (0.8%) with postoperative infection. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic subtalar fusion is a safe and effective alternative to open subtalar arthrodesis, with high patient satisfaction rates, high union rates at similar follow-up intervals, and low complication rates. The aim of future research should be to determine the ideal cases for this approach as well as the most efficient arthroscopic surgical technique and postoperative rehabilitation to optimize function and union as seen on radiographs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".