Arthroscopic versus open hindfoot fusion using a retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal nail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusions are often performed as a salvage procedure in patients with severe hindfoot arthritis or hindfoot deformity. Comorbidities in this patient cohort are frequent, leading to increased risk of postoperative complications. Arthroscopic debridement may afford better wound healing and possible improvement of blood supply. This study compares the outcome of a challenging set of patients undergoing TTC fusion with either arthroscopic or open technique. Methods: For this cohort study, the data for patients undergoing TTC fusion from 2009 to 2018 was prospectively collected and the study design is retrospective. 58 consecutive cases were identified; in 51 cases a TTC fusion was performed while in 7 cases a tibiotalar fusion was performed in the setting of a preexisting talocalcaneal fusion. Arthroscopic technique was used in 22 fusions and open technique in 36 fusions. Results: An overall union rate of 89.7% was achieved. Five tibiotalar non-unions and one non-union of both the tibiotalar and talocalcaneal joints was documented. In the arthroscopic fusion group the non-union rate was 9.1% while in the open group it was 11.1%. The overall reoperation rate was 17%. No patient in the arthroscopic fusion group required a reoperation, whereas in the open group the reoperation rate was 27.8%. In patients with PROs the AOS score improved from 53.1 to 26.2 for the arthroscopic group and from 57.2 to 32.3 for the open group. The satisfaction score improved from 1.4 to 2.7 in the arthroscopic group, and 1.1 to 2.8 in the open group. Conclusions: Arthroscopic TTC fusions are a viable alternative to the open procedure. Nonunion rates are similar, while wound complication rates and reoperation rates are lower. Outcomes measured by PROs are comparable. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case cohort study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".