ライフサイエンスコーパス: valgus

1 6, 0.96) for varus and 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) for valgus.

2 tions, with mean differences as follows: for valgus, 0.94 degrees (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0

3 , the femur-tibia angle was 3.4 degrees more valgus (3.0 degrees in women and 4.7 degrees in men); af

4 Valgus-aligned knees tended to have lower dGEMRIC values

5 Valgus alignment >3 degrees was also associated with car

6 In knees without radiographic OA, valgus alignment >3 degrees was associated with incidenc

7 ression was comparably increased by varus or valgus alignment (10-fold).

8 lateral progression were increased 2-fold by valgus alignment (approaching significance).

9 Varus-valgus alignment (the angle formed by the intersection o

10 Varus-valgus alignment (the angle formed by the intersection o

11 Valgus alignment at baseline was associated with a nearl

12 riminative ability for identifying varus and valgus alignment evidenced by area under the ROC curve.

13 Varus-valgus alignment has been linked to subsequent progressi

14 ces load distribution at the knee; varus and valgus alignment increase medial and lateral load, respe

15 Valgus alignment increased the odds of PF OA progression

16 ncreases risk of medial OA progression, that valgus alignment increases risk of lateral OA progressio

17 re common than medial progression, and varus-valgus alignment influenced the likelihood of PF OA prog

18 Varus-valgus alignment may influence the risk of PF OA and, in

19 1 degrees valgus) and examined the effect of valgus alignment versus neutral alignment (neither varus

20 imating equations, to evaluate the effect of valgus alignment versus neutral alignment on disease out

21 Neutral and valgus alignment were each associated with a reduction i

22 ct of obesity was intermediate in those with valgus alignment.

23 risk of progression in knees with neutral or valgus alignment.

24 al, posterior tibial) and with varus (versus valgus) alignment (central tibial, external tibial, post

25 bregions was associated with neutral (versus valgus) alignment (central tibial, internal tibial, post

26 ratios (ORs) were calculated between hallux valgus and age, sex, body mass index, nodal osteoarthrit

27 We assessed varus-valgus and anteroposterior laxity in 25 young control su

28 Both valgus and varus malalignments affect forces at the PF j

29 alignment (mechanical axis of >/=1.1 degrees valgus) and examined the effect of valgus alignment vers

30 .40-0.62 in dominant knees), and severity of valgus correlated with greater subsequent lateral joint

31 In particular, valgus extension overload during the throwing motion can

32 Proprioceptive acuity was assessed in varus, valgus, flexion, and extension using threshold to detect

33 Pivot, twisting, or valgus forces were reported mechanisms of injury.

34 anatomic axis was offset a mean 4.21 degrees valgus from the mechanical axis (3.5 degrees in women, 6

35 group (r = -0.29, P = 0.0009) but not in the valgus group (r = -0.13, P = 0.17).

36 d renal abnormalities, micrognathia, cubitus valgus, high-arched palate, short metacarpals and Madelu

37 larly among women, but also in patients with valgus hip deformity and other abnormalities leading to

38 Alignment was more valgus in the Beijing men than in the Framingham men (me

39 Hallux valgus is prevalent in the community and is associated w

40 rved sagittal balance, coronal imbalance and valgus knee deformity.

41 duals with medial knee OA respond to a rapid valgus knee movement, to investigate the relationship be

42 varus knees (r = 0.26) but not in those with valgus knees (r = 0.16).

43 equitable in valgus than in varus knees, and valgus knees may better tolerate obesity.

44 ty-four patients had varus knees and 115 had valgus knees.

45 those with varus knees but not in those with valgus knees.

46 ubregions and that neutral and varus (versus valgus) knees each have reduced odds of cartilage loss i

47 Greater varus-valgus laxity in the uninvolved knees of OA patients ver

48 In OA patients, varus-valgus laxity increased as joint space decreased (slope

49 Varus-valgus laxity is associated with a decrease in the magni

50 ese results raise the possibility that varus-valgus laxity may increase the risk of knee OA and cycli

51 knee OA, stratification of analyses by varus-valgus laxity should be considered.

52 l knees and an age-related increase in varus-valgus laxity support the concept that some portion of t

53 In the controls, women had greater varus-valgus laxity than did men (3.6 degrees versus 2.7 degre

54 A device was designed to assess varus-valgus laxity under a constant varus or valgus load whil

55 Varus-valgus laxity was greater in the uninvolved knees of OA

56 ine quadriceps and hamstring strength, varus-valgus laxity, functional status (Western Ontario and Mc

57 mechanical and neuromuscular factors (varus-valgus laxity, malalignment, proprioceptive inaccuracy,

58 bone height is associated with greater varus-valgus laxity.

59 teral lesions were seen mostly in those with valgus limbs.

60 arus-valgus laxity under a constant varus or valgus load while maintaining a fixed knee flexion angle

61 hose with lateral compartment loss were more valgus malaligned (P = 0.008).

62 hritis Initiative (OAI) to define limbs with valgus malalignment (mechanical axis of >/=1.1 degrees v

63 rty-three of 75 knees with lateral PF OA had valgus malalignment compared with only 5 of 21 patients

64 Varus and valgus malalignment increase the risk of medial and late

65 Valgus malalignment increases the risk of knee OA radiog

66 OA is more common than medial PF OA, whether valgus malalignment is more frequent in lateral PF OA th

67 of knee OA examined, the impact of varus or valgus malalignment on the odds of OA progression over t

68 with isolated PF OA were more likely to have valgus malalignment than those with isolated TF OA (P =

69 1.1-30.3]).We found a strong relationship of valgus malalignment with progressive lateral meniscal da

70 Laterally, meniscal tears, valgus malalignment, and cartilage damage were associate

71 In both studies, all strata of valgus malalignment, including 1.1 degrees to 3 degrees

72 ed instruments assessed self-reported hallux valgus, nodal osteoarthritis, and knee pain.

73 We studied 5,053 knees (881 valgus) of subjects in the MOST cohort and 5,953 knees (

74 ts in the MOST cohort and 5,953 knees (1,358 valgus) of subjects in the OAI cohort.

75 versus neutral alignment (neither varus nor valgus) on OA structural outcomes.

76 The second step involved anti-valgus osteotomy of the right tibial bone.

77 Hallux valgus prevalence was calculated and standardized by the

78 for identifying varus and 0.98 and 0.73 for valgus, respectively.

79 ham men (mean 4.5 degrees versus 2.7 degrees valgus, respectively; P < 0.001), but no differences in

80 al elbow joint was measured between rest and valgus stress both at the injured and at the uninjured (

81 that stabilize the knee joint and provide a valgus stress have been shown to improve pain and functi

82 oth ultrasonography (US; conventional US and valgus stress US) and magnetic resonance (MR) arthrograp

83 fications, and demonstrates more laxity with valgus stress.

84 30 degrees of flexion, both at rest and with valgus stress.

85 the BMI-OA severity correlation is weaker in valgus than in varus knees, 3) BMI is correlated with th

86 tment load distribution is more equitable in valgus than in varus knees, and valgus knees may better

87 and whether knees with PF OA are more often valgus than knees with isolated tibiofemoral (TF) OA.

88 tudy to determine the frequency of varus and valgus thrust in African Americans and Caucasians and to

89 Valgus thrust is believed to be less common than varus t

90 Also independently associated with valgus thrust were disease severity and malalignment.

91 The odds of valgus thrust were greater for African Americans than fo

92 wer odds of varus thrust and greater odds of valgus thrust.

93 ally stressed (medial for varus, lateral for valgus) tibiofemoral compartment.

94 central femoral, external femoral) and with valgus (versus varus) alignment (central tibial, externa

95 s to examine our hypotheses that neutral and valgus (versus varus) knees each have reduced odds of ca

96 The standardized prevalence of hallux valgus was 28.4%.

97 Hallux valgus was associated with age (adjusted OR 1.61 per dec

98 , as lesion score worsened, comparably worse valgus was seen with either assessment approach.

99 d patients with knee OA, 2 groups (varus and valgus) were identified based on dominant knee alignment

100 lignment, including 1.1 degrees to 3 degrees valgus, were associated with an increased risk of latera

101 angeal joint in patients with hallux abducto valgus, with 33% of patients reporting multiple sites of