Proximal partial fibular resection versus high tibial osteotomy: Comparative outcomes in early-stage knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of proximal partial fibular resection (PPFR) and opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) in middle-aged patients with early-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2023, a total of 90 patients (47 males, 43 females; mean age: 50.9±5.8 years; range, 40 to 59 years) who underwent PPFR or OWHTO for early-stage medial compartment knee OA were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical technique: Group 1 (n=48) included those who underwent PPFR, while Group 2 (n=42) comprised those treated with OWHTO. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Radiographic measurements included femorotibial angle (FTA) and lateral joint space (LJS). RESULTS: Both procedures demonstrated a significant improvement in function and pain. The mean postoperative FTA change was greater in the OWHTO group (7.69±1.35°) compared to the PPFR group (2.87±1.24°, p=0.001). The mean LJS changes were not statistically significant between the groups. Postoperative WOMAC and VAS scores improved in both groups, indicating no significant difference. Minor complications included transient peroneal nerve symptoms in the PPFR group, which resolved spontaneously at three months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Both PPFR and OWHTO are effective surgical options for early-stage medial compartment knee OA. While OWHTO offers superior mechanical correction, PPFR provides a less invasive alternative with similar functional outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".