Favorable rates of return to activity and work following lateral closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy for femoral‐based symptomatic varus malalignment: an analysis at a mean 6‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate return to sport (RTS), work (RTW) and clinical outcomes following lateral closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LCW-DFO) for symptomatic femoral varus malalignment. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LCW-DFO for symptomatic varus malalignment between 12/2007 and 03/2018 were included. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain were collected preoperatively and at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively. RTS and RTW were assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (mean age: 45.9 ± 12.3 years), who underwent LCW-DFO for femoral-based varus malalignment (6.4 ± 3.0°), were included at a mean follow-up of 72.7 ± 39.1 months. The patient collective significantly improved in IKDC (51.8 ± 12.3 to 61.8 ± 21.5, p = 0.010; 95% CI = 3-21), WOMAC (26.7 ± 17.6 to 12.5 ± 13.5; p < 0.001; 95% CI = 21-6) and Lysholm (46.5 ± 19.4 to 67.9 ± 22.8 points (p < 0.01; 95% CI = 9-31)) scores at final follow-up. The VAS for pain reduced significantly postoperatively (4.8 ± 2.3 points to 2.6 ± 2.3 points (p = 0.002; 95% CI = 0-3)). Following LCW-DFO, 96% of patients returned to sports at a mean of 5.3 ± 2.9 months. Yet, a shift to lower impact sports compared to one year preoperatively was observed, with patients participating in a significantly lower number of high-impact disciplines (p = 0.024) and fewer hours in high-impact sports (p = 0.034). Twenty-three out of 24 patients returned to work at a mean 11.4 ± 10.9 weeks, with 18 patients reporting a similar or superior working ability. CONCLUSION: Undergoing isolated LCW-DFO for symptomatic femoral-based varus malalignment enabled the vast majority of patients to RTS and RTW along with a significant functional improvement at mid-term follow-up. However, patients' expectations have to be adequately managed regarding a limited probability to return to high-impact sports and work after surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series; Level IV.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".