Preoperative overweight and obesity do not cause inferior outcomes following open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: A retrospective cohort study of 123 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) is effective in treating medial compartment osteoarthritis. The association between body mass index (BMI) and outcomes following OWHTO is being debated. This study compared radiographic and clinical outcomes between patients with preoperative overweight, obesity, and normal BMI following OWHTO for medial compartment osteoarthritis. In total, 123 patients (123 knees) who underwent OWHTO for medial compartment osteoarthritis were enrolled and were divided into normal-BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (>30 kg/m2) groups based on body mass index. The numeric rating scale for pain, mechanical tibiofemoral angle (mTFA), tibia tilting angle (TTA), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for function were evaluated preoperatively and at postoperative follow-ups. The improvements of clinical and radiological outcomes in normal-BMI, overweight, and obese groups were not significantly different. The incidence of soft tissue irritation, wound infection, nonunion, and conversion to total knee arthroplasty were not significantly different between groups.The clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with preoperative overweight, obesity, and normal-BMI were not significantly different. Preoperative overweight and obesity thus has no effect on outcomes following OWHTO during the two years follow-up period. These findings cannot be generalized to patients with morbid obesity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".