OUTCOME SCORES AFTER ARTHROSCOPIC ANKLE FUSION REACH A STEADY STATE AFTER ONE YEAR, BUT REVISIONS OCCUR LATER: PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Outcome studies need to follow patients until a point at which the outcome is stable in either retrospective or prospective studies. The longer the time period of follow up the more likely patients will be lost to follow up. Revisions of the primary procedure may take months to years to occur. The purpose of this paper is to determine when scores stabilize after arthroscopic ankle fusion, and the distribution of time to revision. Method: Patients undergoing arthroscopic ankle fusion at one institution performed by four fellowship trained Orthopaedic surgeons were recruited and prospectively followed. Annual outcome scores were obtained. This included AOS, expectation, satisfaction, and SF 36 scores. Statistical analysis was performed to determine when each outcome score achieved a steady state. Results: 190 Arthroscopic ankle fusions were followed annually for an average of 7.2 years (range 1 to 15 years). The age at surgery was 58 +/-12 years, BMI 28.9 +/- 5.5, 66% male, 11% diabetes, and 6% smokers. There were 103 COFAS type 1, 41 type 2, 15 type 3 and 31 type 4. 5 revision fusions were performed, and 29 reoperations performed (most for hardware removal). The AOS score improved after surgery at 6 months and 1 year and was stable thereafter. The SF 36 PCS score stabilized by 6 months. The expectation score stabilized at 6 months, The satisfaction score, stiffness score and swelling score all at 1 year. Revisions on the other hand occur at an average of 2.5 years +/- 2.8 years. Conclusion: Prospective or retrospective data for outcomes for arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis only needs to be followed until 1 year. A similar result has been obtained for ankle replacement. However, if revisions are to be followed then longer term follow up is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".