The effect of medial only versus medial and lateral hamstring lengthening on transverse gait parameters in cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benefits of hamstring lengthening surgery on the sagittal plane in children with cerebral palsy have been previously demonstrated, but there is limited information on its effects on the transverse plane. This study compared the effects of medial hamstring lengthening (MHL) with those of medial and lateral hamstring lengthening (MLHL) procedures in the transverse plane. Children with gross motor function classification system (GMFCS) levels I-III who had MHL or MLHL were included. Baseline, short- (1-2 years), and long-term (3+ years) postoperative three-dimensional gait analysis outcomes were compared using analysis of variance. Children were excluded if they had concurrent osteotomies or tendon transfers. One hundred fifty children (235 limbs) were included, with 110 limbs in the MHL group (age 8.5 ± 4.1 years, GMFCS I-27%, II-52%, and III-21%) and 125 limbs in the MLHL group (age 10.0 ± 4.0 years, GMFCS I-23%, II-41%, and III-37%). Time between surgery and short- and long-term follow-up gait analysis was 1.5 ± 0.6 years and 6.6 ± 2.9 years, respectively. Transmalleolar axis became more external after MHL at both short and long terms ( P < 0.05), whereas there were only significant differences at long term in MLHL ( P < 0.05). Although hamstring lengthening has a positive impact on stance phase knee extension in children with cerebral palsy, intact lateral hamstrings after MHL likely contribute to increased tibial external rotation after surgery. Significant increases in external rotation at the knee in the long term are likely related to a trend present with growth in children with cerebral palsy rather than a direct result of surgical intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".