Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Knee replacement surgery can be performed effectively and efficiently. In fact, many of the fundamental questions about this topic have been addressed. Indeed, much of today's research focuses on refinements of the procedure, including methods to accelerate recovery, reduce morbidity, and decrease costs. This research shows that the needs of the patient, surgeon, and healthcare system can be aligned in ways that can help improve outcomes, reduce length of stay, and lower the financial burden on society.Figure. David: J. Backstein MD, MEd, FRCS(C)In 2016, our patients are aware of, and care about, many of the same issues that we, as surgeons, concern ourselves with. Patients now inquire commonly about surgical exposures, bearing surfaces, implant brands, instrument customization, methods of fixation, and postoperative protocols—again, the same issues that we spend our time thinking about. Our research reflects this. We are in the fine-tuning stage of many areas of knee arthroplasty: Avoiding perioperative pain, reducing the frequency of transfusions, and limiting functional impairment. Studies, including many in this year's proceedings, suggest that knee replacement surgery has become a smaller procedure, with a far more tolerable recovery period than ever before. However, as we also see in this issue of the proceedings, many fundamental and important challenges remain. Defining the best limb alignment for both function and implant longevity remains controversial. We have yet to eliminate the scourge of periprosthetic infection, and we continue to work on its prevention and treatment. Additionally, questions related to the best bearing surface and revision techniques remain as relevant as ever. The proceedings that follow make it is clear that while great strides have been made, knee replacement surgery in fact is not “solved problem.” In this era of reduced surgeon compensation and hospital penalties for what once were considered inevitable complications of joint replacement surgery, standardization and optimization of care pathways appear both necessary and cost-effective. But it remains our responsibility to put patients first and advocate for the surgical techniques and implants that serve each individual best over the long-term. To that end, we must continue to find better ways to best document and measure outcomes, identify and eliminate technique and implant outliers, and do so efficiently. The articles for this year's proceedings of the Knee Society were specifically selected to provide information upon which the reader can rely upon and use in a modern clinical practice. I am proud to have been involved and sincerely hope that that the findings presented here can help readers treat their patients, as well as inspire clinician-scientists to refine future research directions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,032 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,035 | 0,037 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».