Tibial tubercle osteotomy (Fulkerson procedure) on women athlete with anterior knee pain: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anterior knee pain (AKP) is one of the most frequent complaints in knee conditions of adolescent and young adult patients. Tibial tuberosity osteotomy (Fulkerson procedure) is a well-described treatment option for a broad range of patellofemoral joint disorders. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of tibial tubercle osteotomy and prognostic factors correlated with the outcomes in adolescents’ athletes affected by anterior knee pain. Three patients treated with tibial tubercle osteotomy for anterior knee pain were prospectively evaluated using the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS), The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and the part of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score to find different potential risk factors as an objective evaluation. The three cases are showing improvement in overall scores, both in six months (WOMAC 72.4; KUJALA 64.6%; IKDC 52.1%) and after one year (WOMAC 82.6; KUJALA 83.3%; IKDC 70.3%) following the surgical procedure. Patient 1 and patient 2 obeyed the physiotherapy schedules and checked their condition regularly. Their scores indicate an immense improvement than patient 3, who did not comply with the physiotherapy nor the check-up. However, the comparison analysis shows a significant increase of the scores for all three assessment methods (WOMAC, KUJALA and IKDC), that implies a good result of clinical outcome may still be achieved even without a close follow up. Even though the Fulkerson procedure was the treatment option for a broad range of AKP, a different comprehensive range result of the scores was found.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".