Intraosseous Ganglion Cyst of the Talus Treated With Curettage and Bone Grafting Through a Medial Malleolus Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraosseous ganglion cyst (IGC) of the talus is a rare entity. There is no consensus regarding the best surgical approach to the talus. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of curettage and bone grafting of the talus IGC via medial malleolus osteotomy. METHODS: Seventeen patients with talus IGC who were treated between 2002 and 2020 using curettage and bone grafting through a medial malleolus osteotomy were included. The outcome measures were ankle range of motion (ROM), pain, and function. The ankle pain was evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS). The ankle function was evaluated by the Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. RESULTS: The study population included 10 men and 7 women with a mean age of 34.9 ± 18.8 years and a mean follow-up of 5.4 ± 3 years. The mean size of the lesion was 2.6 ± 0.8 cm. Postoperatively, mean ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion were 19.4 ± 5.8 degrees and 36.7 ± 5.3 degrees, respectively. The mean VAS was 0.9 ± 1.1. The mean MSTS score and TESS were 96.2 ± 3.5 and 94.5 ± 4.1, respectively. Two patients developed ankle osteoarthritis after 3 years (1 stage I and 1 stage II). One of these patients (stage II) also had recurrence after 6 months (recurrence rate: 6.7%). CONCLUSION: Talus IGC could be adequately managed with curettage and bone grafting through a medial malleolus osteotomy. Even so, mild pain and reduced ankle ROM remain in some patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".