Increased symptoms of stiffness after opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy are associated with worse postoperative knee function outcomes and lower patient satisfaction rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Symptoms of knee stiffness after open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OW-HTO) can significantly affect surgical effectiveness, but no studies have reported risk factors for knee stiffness after OW-HTO. Methods Patients treated with OW-HTO for the first time between 2018 and 2021 were included. Data were collected on patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form (SF) 12 scores, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and patient satisfaction before and after surgery. Patients with worse WOMAC stiffness scores at 1 year were defined as the 'increased stiffness' group and the other cohort as the 'non-stiffness' group. The primary outcome of the study was to compare postoperative knee function scores (WOMAC and SF-12), HKA and patient satisfaction rate between the two groups. The secondary outcome was the use of logistic regression to analyze independent predictors of increased postoperative stiffness symptoms. Results At 1 year postoperatively, 95 (11.3%) patients had a significant increase in stiffness. Patients had significantly ( p < .001) less improvement in pain, function, and total WOMAC scores, and SF-12 score than those in the non-stiffness group ( n = 745). However, the differences in WOMAC and SF-12 scores in increased stiffness group at 1 year post-operatively were statistically significant ( p < .001) compared to the non-stiffness group. There was no statistically significant difference in HKA in the increased stiffness group (172.9° ± 2.3°) compared to non-stiffness group (173.4° ± 2.6°) at 1 year postoperatively ( p = .068). Patient satisfaction was significantly lower in the increased stiffness group ( p < .001). Logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes (odds ratio (OR) 1.809, p = .034) and preoperative WOMAC stiffness score of 44 or less (OR 4.255 p < .001) were predictors of increased stiffness. Conclusions Patients with increased stiffness after OW-HTO had worse functional outcomes and lower patient satisfaction rates and patients at risk of being in this group should be informed pre-operatively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".