MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205557795 · doi:10.1177/2473011421s00025

Arthroscopic vs Open Ankle Arthrodesis: A 5-Year Comparison

2022· article· en· W4205557795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleAnkle replacementOrthopedic surgeryAnkle arthrodesisArthrodesisSurvivorship curveRetrospective cohort studyCohortArthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Category: Ankle; Ankle Arthritis; Arthroscopy Introduction/Purpose: End-stage ankle arthritis has long been managed surgically with open ankle arthrodesis (OAA). More recently, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (AAA) is thought to be associated with improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and fewer complications. The objective of this study was to systematically compare these two approaches in long-term PROMs, major complication rates and survivorship of the ankle fusion. Methods: In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study, all patients with an ankle fusion done at our institution and a minimum two-year follow-up were screened for inclusion. Patients demographics at baseline were collected including: age, gender, BMI, smoking status, diabetes status as well as preoperative ankle arthritis COFAS (Canadian Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society) type. The following PROMs were completed preoperatively, at 6-months and annually thereafter to five years: AAS, AOS, SF-36, expectation, satisfaction and swelling scores. PROMs were compared at all timepoints using a mixed-effects regression model adjusted for baseline patients' demographics, COFAS type and PROMs. Major postoperative complications and survival analysis/rate of revision of the ankle fusions were also compared. Results: Of 874 patients screened for inclusion, 351 ankle fusions done between 2003 and 2019 were eligible for the study, 223 AAA and 128 OAA. The two groups were similar at baseline with respect to demographics, but COFAS type was higher in the OAA group and AAS and AOS scores were better in the AAA group. At one-year post-operatively, there was a higher mean AAS score in the AAA group, but there were no other differences in outcomes at any other timepoint. Survivorship of the ankle fusion in the arthroscopic group was lower (ie higher rate of revision) due to a higher rate of amputation or fusion. Deep infection and wound complications were more common with OAA and accounted for most ankle fusion revisions in this group. Conclusion: There were no consistent differences in PROMs of patients who underwent AAA versus OAA patients up to five- years postoperatively. Ankle fusions done arthroscopically had a lower survivorship rate compared to those done with the open approach due to a higher rate of major complications. Previously proposed advantages of AAA over OAA may therefore need to re-assessed and weighed against the technical challenges and associated complications of the arthroscopic technique.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot & Ankle OrthopaedicsSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207