Republication of “Perspectives in Treatments of End-Stage Ankle Arthritis Among Orthopaedic Surgeons: Analysis of an American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Member Survey”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the preferred operative treatment for patients over the age of 60 with end-stage ankle arthritis and perspectives on total ankle replacement (TAR) among American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) members. Associated factors were analyzed for potential contraindications among members with different levels of experience. Method: A questionnaire containing 6 questions was designed and sent to 2056 members of the AOFAS. Responses were received from 467 orthopaedic surgeons practicing in the United States (76%), Canada (5%), and 26 other countries (20%). Participants were grouped for response comparisons according to country as well as experience level. Differences in contraindications were compared using χ 2 tests or exact tests. Results: Respondents practicing in the United States and surgeons who perform 11 or more TARs per year tended to recommend operative treatments favoring TAR and displayed recognition of its increasing role (P < .05). Overall, respondents felt that 41% of typical patients over 60 years old with end-stage arthritis would be best treated with TAR. Talus avascular necrosis, morbid obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m 2 ), and poorly controlled diabetes with neuropathy were most recognized as the absolute contraindications to TAR. Surgeon’s experience affected the consideration of these clinical factors as contraindications. Conclusions: Total ankle replacement has a substantial and increasing role in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis in patients over the age of 60. Absolute and potential contraindications of the procedures were indicated from a cross-sectional survey of AOFAS members. Surgeons more experienced with total ankle replacement felt more comfortable employing it in a wider range of clinical settings. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".