Combining Proximal Fibular Osteotomy with High Tibial Osteotomy – Is It Better than High Tibial Osteotomy Alone? Comparative Evaluation of Early Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Valgisation high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a widely performed procedure for patients with medial compartment unicompartmental osteoarthrosis knee with varus malalignment of lower limbs. Over the last two decades, medial open-wedge HTO has been more popular than lateral closed-wedge techniques due to multiple advantages. Recently, isolated proximal fibular osteotomy/fibulectomy (PFO) has been advocated as a treatment for medial tibiofemoral osteoarthrosis in young patients. The role of fibulectomy as an adjunct to medial open-wedge HTO has been scarcely reviewed in the literature. Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective comparative evaluation of clinical outcomes between patients undergoing PFO + HTO versus HTO alone. Functional outcome of ten patients in either group was assessed by Oxford Knee Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities score. Results: Patients undergoing PFO + HTO had a larger degree of angular correction. There were lesser complications related to HTO (no delayed union and nonunion). Furthermore, there was no loss of limb alignment. However, peroneal nerve (transient) palsy was reported in this group. Overall, patients had better pain relief and improved scores in the PFO + HTO group. Conclusion: PFO seems to be beneficial (albeit statistically insignificant in our cohort) in medial open-wedge osteotomy by allowing compression and promoting union at osteotomy site, maintaining limb alignment for longer period, and providing bone graft for osteotomy site. We recommend a larger prospective study to study the benefits of PFO + HTO for correction greater than 10°, osteoporosis, iatrogenic fracture of lateral cortex of tibia, and slope correction osteotomies. Care should be exercised while handling the common peroneal nerve during PFO.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".