Clinical outcome after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: comparison of double-triangle locking compression plate (DT-LCP) and T-shaped locking compression plate (T-LCP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of two internal fixation methods for high tibial osteotomy (HTO): double-triangle locking compression plate (DT-LCP) and T-shaped locking compression plate (T-LCP). METHODS: 202 adult patients in our hospital between January 2018 and December 2021 were included and followed up for at least one year: group 1(DT-LCP, 98 patients) and group 2 (T-LCP, 104 patients). Detailed information on demographics, preoperative and postoperative follow-up, surgical procedures, and complications were collected. The information of the International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were collected before surgery and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis. No significant difference was found in terms of demographic data between groups, except for age and BMI. Clinically relevant improvements in knee pain were reached up to last follow-up after the operation in both groups. The mean pain scores (KOOS, WOMAC) at the final follow-up were significantly higher among group 1 compared to group 2 (P = 0.040 and P = 0.023). Furthermore, the DT-LCP internal fixation exerted more excellent effects on other symptoms, function and quality of life than T-LCP internal fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that DT-LCP provided better clinical performance due to its implant irritant pain, compared with T-LCP. Thus, DT-LCP is a feasible alternative for the fixation of OW-HTO.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".