Subtalar Joint Fusion For STJ OA before vs after Total Ankle Replacement: Does it affect patient outcomes? – A 10 year follow up clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Category: Ankle; Hindfoot Introduction/Purpose: There is paucity of literature reporting outcomes in patients who undergo subtalar joint fusion surgery before vs. after having a Total Ankle Replacement (TAR). We aimed to study the PROMs in patients who underwent a staged approach of Subtalar arthrodesis (STJA) followed by TAR vs patients who underwent TAR followed by further STJA surgery. Methods: All patients who underwent a STJA surgery and TAR surgery (in either order) between 2006 and 2010 included in this study. patient reported outcomes including WOMAC (Western Ontario McMasters Osteoarthritis score), SF-36 general health score and patient satisfaction scores were compared between groups. They analysed pre-operatively and at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years post-operatively. Out of 210 TARs performed, 14 patients underwent a two staged procedure between 2006 and 2010 by a single surgeon. 5 patients had STJ fusion after TAR (Group A) and 9 patients had STJ fusion before TAR (Group B). Results: Mean age of Group A and B was 52.5 years and 62.1 years respectively. 1 patient in Group A and 3 patients in Group B were deceased. Both groups reported improvement in scores for WOMAC, SF -36 from pre-op to 1 year post operatively (p < 0.05) and the results plateaued to 5 years with slight decline in scores from 5 to 10 years. At 2 years, Group B reported lower scores for stiffness (9.6±11.7 vs. 64.3 ±27.4) p=0.002, At 5 years, Group A reported lower scores than group B for General health and mental health components of SF-36 scores (p=0.044); however, there was no differences between groups for WOMAC, SF-36 and patient satisfaction outcomes at 10 years post-operatively. Conclusion: There were similar outcomes reported by patients who underwent STJA either before or after TAR at average of 10 year follow up in this 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".