Midterm Results of AAA Ankle Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcome reports for Alpha Ankle Arthroplasty (AAA), a third-generation implant relying on a mobile bearing design for total ankle replacement, are sparse. This retrospective study evaluated the midterm survivorship, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after implantation of this implant. METHODS: For 64 patients who received 65 Triple A ankle implants between 2009 and 2020, implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier curve. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by measuring the range of motion, stability, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Questionnaire score (WOMAC), and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The average pain level and satisfaction with the postoperative result were rated on a numeric rating scale (0-10). Additionally, radiologic analysis was performed using anteroposterior and lateral radiographs and tibiotalar alignment was assessed. RESULTS: The implant-survival rate was 61.5% at a mean follow-up of 8.2 years. Twenty-five patients (38.5%) required revision surgery (average time to revision, 3.1 years, 95% CI 2.1-4.1 years). For patients without revisions, the average range of motion in dorsiflexion and plantarflexion were 3.6 ± 4.2 degrees and 21.9 ± 7.8 degrees, respectively. The mean WOMAC and AOFAS scores were 44.7 ± 47.5 and 75.1 ± 14.0, respectively. The average pain and subjective satisfaction scores were 2.0 ± 1.7 and 8.5 ± 1.9, respectively. Mean alignment values did not differ significantly for patients who required revision surgery. CONCLUSION: We found a high revision rate with use of the AAA. However, patients who did not require revision surgery had, on average, high satisfaction and good functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".