OPEN VERSUS ARTHROSCOPIC ANKLE FUSION: A LONG-TERM PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE MULTICENTRE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This multi-centre study aimed to compare complication rates, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between open ankle arthrodesis (OAA) and arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (AAA) in treating end-stage ankle arthritis. Method: Prospectively collected data from three medical centres in the (blinded) database in a retrospective study. Patients who underwent primary ankle arthrodesis for the treatment of end-stage arthritis with a minimum of 2 years follow up and valid patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores were included. Preoperative COFAS ankle arthritis type, validated PROMs including the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) with 2 components (the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS)), as well as major complications including malunion, non-union, infection, amputations, and reoperations related to the arthrodesis were evaluated using CROCS (Canadian Reoperation Coding System). Results: 447 primary ankle arthrodeses were included (178 AAA, 269 OAA) with 1-15 years of follow up (average 7.13 yrs +/- 3.8). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to demographics except there were more cases of type-1 and type-4 COFAS arthritis in the OAA group, and a higher BMI in the open group. There was a 6.9% (31 cases) incidence of major complications including 3.79% (17) related operations around the ankle, 0.67% (3) deep infection, 1.78% (8) revisions due to non-union or malunion, and 0.67% (3) amputations. The arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis cohort had a better outcome score at 2 years (AOS score 22.9 +/- 19.3 vs 29.3 +/- 29.3 +/- 20.7) and 4 years (23.3 +/- 19.5 vs 34.3 +/- 22.4). From 5 to 15 years there was no difference. Conclusion: This study shows better outcomes for the arthroscopic cohort. However, differences may be less after correction for confounding factors such as surgeon, site, and COFAS grade. Revision surgery is rare in both groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".