Early results of high tibial osteotomy versus combined arthroscopic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the early effect of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) compared with combined arthroscopic surgery. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent HTO at The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University from January 2018 to January 2022. 138 patients (163 knees) with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treated with HTO were selected. The medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), joint line convergence angle (JLCA), femoral tibial angle (FTA), hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, weight-bearing line (WBL) ratio of the knee joint, opening gap, opening angle, American Knee Society score (KSS), US Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score were measured to determine the different effects between HTO and HTO combined with arthroscopic by logistic regression analysis. Results Patients with HTO combined with arthroscopic surgery have improved functional scores as well as imaging perspectives compared to preoperative. By multivariate logistic analysis, it was concluded that arthroscopic surgery and gender are influential factors in the outcome of HTO surgery. The postoperative KSS score was 2.702 times more likely to be classified as excellent in the HTO combined with arthroscopy group than in the HTO group [Exp (β) = 2.702, 95% CI (1.049–6.961), P = 0.039]; the postoperative KSS score was 0.349 times more likely to be classified as excellent in women than in men [Exp (β) = 0.349, 95% CI (0.138–0.883), P = 0.026]. Conclusion Better results with HTO combined with arthroscopic surgery. HTO combined with arthroscopy is a better choice in the surgical treatment of KOA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".