MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409761368 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2025.04.028

The Commonest Indication for Performing a Slope‐Reducing Osteotomy With an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Graft Failure With a Posterior Tibial Slope of 12° or Greater: A Systematic Review of Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

2025· review· en· W4409761368 on OpenAlexaff
Prushoth Vivekanantha, Mohamed Ali, Ryan Martin, Sachin Tapasvi, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh tibial osteotomyMedicineAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAnterior cruciate ligamentOrthodonticsOsteotomySurgeryOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To (1) summarize indications/inclusion criteria and contraindications/exclusion criteria, operative techniques and details, and rehabilitation timelines for slope-reducing osteotomies with concomitant primary or revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACLR) and (2) summarize the radiographic and clinical outcomes that follow these types of surgeries. METHODS: Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE) were searched on December 22, 2024, for studies with patients undergoing ACLR with concomitant slope-reducing osteotomy. The authors adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: Six case series (Level IV) comprising 193 patients (27.5% female) with a mean age of 28.5 (range of means, 26.9-29.6) years were included. Four of 6 studies (66.7%) reported an indication for slope-reducing osteotomy, being a posterior tibial slope of 12° in revision or re-revision cases. Typical exclusion criteria for osteotomy reported by 5 studies included hyperextension of 5° to 10° or hypermobility (4 studies) and concomitant osteoarthritis (3 studies). Lysholm, Tegner, and visual analog scale scores all statistically increased postoperatively. Rates of return to sport at any level ranged from 81.3% to 100% and 25% to 100%, respectively. Graft failure rates in all studies ranged from 0% to 13%. Rates of recurvatum postoperatively ranged from 15% to 44%. Rates of hardware irritation/removal ranged from 0% to 46.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The most common indication for slope-reducing osteotomies with concurrent ACLR is in the revision setting in patients with a posterior tibial slope above 12°. Slope-reducing osteotomies with ACLR improve patient-reported outcome measures postoperatively and have low rates of instability and retear rates. Complications with osteotomy include postoperative recurvatum, postoperative hyperextension, and hardware removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207