Similar Outcomes between Open-wedge High Tibial Osteotomy Alone and Root Repair for Isolated Meniscal Root Tears in Patients without Severe Varus Deformity or Advanced Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The suitability of open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) alone versus root repair alone for medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) in patients without severe varus deformity or advanced osteoarthritis remains uncertain. Objectives: In this study, clinical outcomes were compared between patients who underwent open-wedge HTO alone or root repair alone for root tear. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis and MMPRTs were consecutively included, and those with severe varus deformity (varus >8°) or advanced osteoarthritis (Kellgren–Lawrence Grade IV) were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: open-wedge HTO alone and root repair alone groups. Pain reduction and functional recovery were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at preoperative baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Results: In total, 13 patients (14 knees) with a mean age of 63.0 ± 5.1 were included in the open-wedge HTO group, and 16 patients (16 knees) with a mean age of 59.7 ± 7.4 were included in the root repair group. The follow-up duration was 24 months for all patients. After surgery, the patients in both groups exhibited significant improvement in WOMAC pain and functional scores at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups. No significant differences were observed between the groups in WOMAC pain and functional scores during the follow-up period. No complications were observed in either group. Conclusion: Similar outcomes can be achieved for patients receiving either open-wedge HTO alone or root repair alone for treatment of MMPRTs without severe deformity or advanced osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".