Medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy for the treatment of degenerative varus knee osteoarthritis in geriatric patients: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract HTO has proven to be a cost-effective surgical procedure in the treatment of KOA, but few investigations have studied radiological changes and clinical effectiveness of OWHTO in geriatric patients. 76 patients were recruited in this retrospective study. According to the age, patients were divided into two groups (≤ 60, Group “Young”; > 60, Group “Geriatric”). Demographic data, radiological imaging and postoperative complications were analyzed. Kellgren–Lawrence grade (K–L), weight-bearing line ratio (WBLR); posterior tibial slope angle (PTS); American knee score (AKS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and visual analog scale (VAS) were introduced to estimate the clinical outcome of OWHTO. There were 18 male and 58 female patients in the present study with a mean age of 58.5 ± 9.2 years (ranges from 40 to 82 years); the average age was 51.4 ± 4.1 years and 67.3 ± 4.9 years for group Y and G respectively, 44.7% and 31.5% patients were older than 60 and 65 years. BMI for the 76 patients was 26.6 ± 3.2 kg/m2, and geriatric patients were more likely accompanied by one or more comorbidities (70.6 vs. 45.2%). There were 34 and 42 patients in group Geriatric and group Young respectively, and no significant difference of MPTA, WBLR, PTS and WOMAC, VAS, AKS and ROM between the two group (P > 0.05) were found. After more than a two-year follow-up period, postoperative WBLR, AKS, WOMAC and VAS were much more desired than preoperative, and no significant difference of these variables between the young and geriatric group (P > 0.05), however, elderly patients were more likely to suffer from a longer bone union time. OWHTO can avoid geriatric patients from undergoing secondary knee surgery in the short term, however the survival rate of OWHTO in geriatric patients should be ultimately clarified by different studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".