[Total knee arthroplasty with ultracongruent tibial insert. Two-year follow-up].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is no single criterion to select a posterior stabilization system for an arthroplasty; the ultracongruent system may avoid the complications observed with the drawer and the post. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and functional status of total knee arthroplasty with the ultracongruent system and compare the results with those published in the international literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out with a descriptive and comparative analysis of the total knee arthroplasties in which the Consensus system was used, to determine the operative time, the range of motion, pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC), and the level of satisfaction. RESULTS: Sixty-six arthroplasties were performed; mean age was 70.58 years; 45.5% were right and 54.5% left; the operative time was 76.84 minutes, the VAS pain score was 2.02, the WOMAC score was 17.11, and the range of motion was 96.5 +/- 14.04. Ninety-two percent of the patients are satisfied with the surgical procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The prosthesis with the ultracongruent insert is an effective option to relieve pain in patients with knee pathology. The clinical and functional results were similar to those reported with other stabilization systems. The system is well accepted by the patients. It is recommended as an alternative to prevent the possible complications that occur with the drawer and post system.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".