Tibial derotational osteotomy for idiopathic tibial torsion: A systematic review of surgical indications based on clinical presentation and measurement technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify the surgical indications of tibial derotational osteotomy (TDO) in patients with idiopathic external tibial torsion (ETT) and identify common measurement thresholds for surgical correction. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane Library via Wiley, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus via EBSCOhost, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and Global Index Medicus databases was performed with search terms reflecting the concepts of idiopathic tibial torsion, TDOs, and surgical indications. Studies reporting surgical indications and measurement methods of idiopathic tibial torsion in patients who underwent TDO were included. Two authors independently screened articles and extracted data that was characterized with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were identified for inclusion, with 460 tibias and 351 patients. Nearly all patients who underwent surgery had either anterior knee pain or patellar instability, even if other indications were present. Of all included patients, the most common surgical indications for TDO were anterior knee pain (88%), patellar instability (59%), gait dysfunction (41%) and cosmetic deformity (12%). Twelve studies (71%) cited multiple of these indications as reasons for surgery. On physical exam, tibial torsion was measured most commonly by thigh-foot angle (59%) (TFA) and transmalleolar axis (24%) (TMA). In terms of TFA, the most frequently reported cut-off for ETT was >30° (35%). Computerized tomography (CT) was used by nine studies (53%). The most common CT axes used to measure ETT were the TMA with respect to the posterior tibia condylar axis or the bicondylar tibia axis. CONCLUSION: Anterior knee pain and/or patellar instability are common indications for TDO in patients with idiopathic tibial torsion. Standardized TFA thresholds (>30°) and CT measurement methods (TMA and posterior tibia condylar or bicondylar tibial axis) may help further establish objective surgical indications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".