A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Total Ankle Arthroplasty or Ankle Arthrodesis for Treatment of Osteoarthritis in Patients With Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: End-stage ankle osteoarthritis often requires one of 2 major surgical procedures: total ankle arthroplasty or ankle arthrodesis. Although the gold standard has been arthrodesis, patients with diabetes represent a unique cohort that requires additional considerations because of their decreased mobility and risk factors for cardiovascular complications. The purpose of this study is to review odds of major and minor adverse events for patients with diabetes and patients without diabetes in both total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. Methods: A total of 14 articles published between 2010 and 2020 were included in this review. Databases included PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE/Embase, and Cochrane Library. Key words included ankle arthroplasty, total ankle arthroplasty, ankle arthrodesis, and diabetes. Results: The total number of procedures was 26 287, comprising 13 830 arthroplasty and 12 457 arthrodesis procedures. There was a significant association between patients with diabetes treated with arthrodesis and major adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 1.880, 95% CI 1.279, 2.762), whereas no significant association was observed between patients with diabetes treated with arthroplasty and major adverse events (OR 1.106, 95% CI 0.871, 1.404). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests patients with diabetes to be at significantly higher risk for major and minor adverse events after undergoing ankle arthrodesis. However, it suggests no significant differences in major adverse events between patients with diabetes and patients without diabetes having undergone total ankle arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".