Does preoperative bone marrow edema affect clinical outcomes after medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in patients with bone marrow edema (BME) and assess the effect of factors on the subsequent results. METHODS: A total of 138 patients who underwent medial open-wedge HTO using locking plate were included in this study. BME was observed in 108 patients using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical results were evaluated before HTO and postoperatively at 12 months. Moreover, we evaluated the factors affecting the clinical results. RESULTS: The clinical scores were all significantly improved regardless of the presence of BME. There were no differences in improvement of clinical scores between patients with BME and without BME. Patients with BME showed higher postoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) stiffness scores than patients without BME. Furthermore, patients with BME on both the femur and tibia showed lower Knee Society function scores than patients with BME on either the femur or the tibia. Patients with large BME lesions exhibited a lower Hospital for Special Surgery score and WOMAC pain scores, postoperatively. In patients with BME, patients with undercorrection showed significantly lower improvement in WOMAC pain scores compared with patients with acceptable correction. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical improvement after HTO in patients with varus and medial osteoarthritis was not different regardless of the presence or absence of BME. However, accurate alignment should be considered essential for achieving better clinical outcomes in patients with preoperative BME.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".