Retrospective Comparison of Midterm Survivorship, Radiographic, and Clinical Outcomes of the INBONE II and Salto Talaris Total Ankle Arthroplasty Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prior studies on the INBONE II and Salto Talaris total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) systems have reported promising outcomes for both implants. This retrospective study aimed to compare the midterm differences between INBONE II and Salto Talaris TAA. Methods: Between 2007 and 2015, a total of 44 INBONE II consecutive cases and 85 Salto Talaris consecutive cases had minimum 5-year clinical and radiographic follow-up. Preoperative and midterm survivorship, postoperative Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and radiographic measures including tibiotalar alignment (TTA), medial distal tibial angle (MDTA), and sagittal tibial angle (STA) were compared. Results: Survivorship to revision was 97.6% (95% CI, 93.1%-100%) for the INBONE II group and 97% (95% CI, 93%-100%) for the Salto Talaris group ( P = .93). Survivorship to reoperation was significantly different: 95.5% for the INBONE II and 76.4% for Salto Talaris ( P = .021). Postoperative FAOS pain ( P = .01), symptoms ( P = .004), and sports activity ( P = .02) scores were significantly higher in the INBONE II group. The INBONE group had greater preoperative deformity (varus TTA P < .001, valgus TTA P = .02, valgus MDTA P = .005). Conclusion: Although both implants had similar longevity and postoperative alignment, the INBONE II resulted in greater clinical improvement and fewer reoperations than the Salto Talaris at midterm follow-up. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".