Comparison of outcomes between gap balancing and measured resection techniques for total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of Gap Balancing (GB) versus Measured Resection (MR) techniques on the early clinical and radiological results of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: In this prospective study, 99 patients (99 knees) who underwent unilateral TKA between March 2018 and January 2019 were randomly allocated to one of two groups: The GP group, TKA with GB technique (19 male, 31 female; mean age = 55.9 ±16.5) and the MR group, TKA with MR technique (19 male, 30 female; mean age = 54.2 ± 18.7). Patients in both groups were comparable in terms of the demographic and clinical data. The angle of cutting block to PCA and Cutting Thickness of the Medial and Lateral Condyle (CTMC, CTLC) were intraoperatively measured. In radiographic analysis, Preoperative Mechanical Femorotibial Angle (Pre-mFTA), Postoperative Mechanical Femorotibial Angle (Post-mFTA), and joint line changes were examined. Femoral component Rotation Angle (FCRA) was also measured by computed tomography. In gait analysis, the spatiotemporal parameters (walking speed, step length, and single support time) and kinematics parameters (flexion angle, extension angle, and transversal rotation) were collected at 12 months postoperatively. Furthermore, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were performed at 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: CTMC and CTLC were both significantly higher in GB group than in the MR group (9.8±2.0 mm vs 8.5 ± 1.2 mm; 7.9 ± 1.8mm vs 6.8 ± 1.4mm; P = 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively). Angle of cutting block to PCA was statistically lower in GB group than in the MR group (1.7 ± 1.5° vs 3.1 ± 0.5 °; P < 0.001). FCRA is greater in the GB group compared to the MR group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (1.2 ± 2.8 ° vs 0.7 ± 2.0 °; P > 0.05). Although post-mFTA significantly improved compared with pre-mFTA in both groups, no significant difference was observed in the changes of post-mFTA between the two groups (0.9 ± 1.7° vs 0.3 ± 1.8°, P > 0.05). No significant differences were determined between the two groups in spatiotemporal gait parameters including walking speed, step length, and single support time. The sagittal max knee flexion range was significantly larger in the GB group than in the MR group (49.27 ± 5.24 ° vs 45.99 ± 8.21 °, P < 0.05). The flexion range did not reach the level of the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in WOMAC at 12 months follow-up (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study has revealed GB and MR techniques have both little effect on early clinical results of TKA. Nonetheless, GB technique can provide better knee flexion in the early postoperative gait status compared with MR technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Therapeutic Study.
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 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
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 ».