MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283831292 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.21.01088

Arthroscopic Versus Open Ankle Arthrodesis

2022· article· en· W4283831292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Monther Abuhantash, Andrea Veljkovic, Kevin Wing, Oliver Gagné, Hong Qian, Hubert Wong, Hooman Sadr, Murray J. Penner, Alastair Younger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleArthrodesisSurgeryOsteoarthritisAnkle replacementArthritisOrthopedic surgeryAnkle arthrodesisCohortPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: End-stage ankle arthritis has long been managed surgically with open ankle arthrodesis (OAA). Since the first published report in 1983, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (AAA) has been thought to be associated with improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and fewer complications. The purpose of the present study was to compare the long-term PROMs, major complications, and reoperations for these 2 approaches at up to 15 years of follow-up. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included patients at our institution who underwent primary ankle arthrodesis for the treatment of end-stage arthritis. Demographic data and preoperative COFAS (Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) ankle arthritis type were collected for all patients. PROMs were completed preoperatively, at 6 months, and annually thereafter to 5 years. PROMs were compared at all time points with use of a mixed-effects regression model that adjusted for preoperative variables and scores. Major complications and reoperations at the site of the ankle arthrodesis were also compared. RESULTS: Of 1,294 patients who were screened for inclusion, 351 who had undergone ankle arthrodesis between 2003 and 2019 were eligible for the study. Of those, 223 had undergone AAA and 128 had undergone OAA. The 2 groups were similar preoperatively with respect to demographics, but COFAS Type-4 arthritis was relatively more common in the OAA group and Type-1 arthritis was relatively more common in the AAA group. In addition, the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) score and Ankle Arthritis Score (AAS) were better in the AAA group. In the mixed-effects model analysis, the differences in postoperative outcome scores between the groups were not significant. The risk of revision due to malunion or nonunion was similar in both groups (6% in the AAA group, compared with 4% in the OAA group). Deep infection and wound complications did not occur in the arthroscopic group but occurred in 4% of the patients in the OAA group. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for baseline patient characteristics, there were no differences in PROMs between the 2 techniques. Ankle arthrodeses done arthroscopically had a similar revision rate but lower infection rate compared with those done with the open technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207