Clinical efficacy and feasibility of laser correction technology with an ordinary laser pen and surgical instrument box in open-wedge high tibial osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes of open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) for medial knee osteoarthritis primarily depend on the corrective precision. The present study aimed to determine the efficacy and feasibility of laser correction technology with an ordinary laser pen and surgical instrument box. METHODS: This prospective and randomized trial included 71 patients randomly divided into laser (n = 36) and traditional groups (n = 35). In the laser group, the hip centre, knee (Fujisawa point), and ankle centre were located preoperatively using the surgical instrument box lid. The leg was aligned with an ordinary laser pen. In the traditional group, the lower limb alignment was corrected by a metal cable. Radiation exposure, operative time, and rate of outliers (lower limb force line does not pass through 62-66% of the lateral tibial plateau) were evaluated. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were recorded. After 24 months, the femoral tibial angle (FTA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and posterior slope angle (PSA), were recorded. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the survival time of affected knees, and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: The radiation exposure, operative time and rate of outliers were lower in the laser correction group (P < 0.05). Six months postoperatively, the VAS and WOMAC scores were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.001). At 24 months, the FTA, MPTA, and PSA were corrected in both groups (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the postoperative knee survival time from OWHTO to knee arthroplasty between the groups or postoperative complications (P = 0.53; P = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Laser correction technology can effectively reduce radiation exposure, the operative time, and the rate of outliers (trial identification number (retrospectively registered): ChiCTR2200060480; date of register: 03/06/2022).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".