Bilateral total knee arthroplasty--staged or simultaneous? Ontario's orthopedic surgeons reply.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement is now the most common joint replacement procedure performed in Ontario, and many patients require bilateral replacement. However, whether bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) should be staged or simultaneous is hotly debated. To determine the current common operative practices of orthopedic surgeons in Ontario, we carried out a province-wide survey. METHODS: Orthopedic surgeons from Ontario listed in the 1999 Canadian Medical Directory or the membership list of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association were sent questionnaires, asking about their practice in the timing of bilateral TKA, tourniquet use, type of guide and use of techniques to minimize fat embolization. RESULTS: Of the 416 surveys mailed, 219 (53%) surgeons responded. The majority responded that they perform staged bilateral TKA (28% 3-mo interval and 37% 6-mo interval). Simultaneous TKA with 2 teams was the least performed procedure (2%). When performing bilateral TKA, 95% of surgeons use an intramedullary femoral alignment guide, 78% utilize an over-reamed entry hole and 53% suction the canal before inserting the guide rod. With respect to the tibia, 32% use an intramedullary guide, 60% over-ream the entry hole and 60% suction the entry hole; 22% of surgeons stated that they had never considered over-reaming or suctioning the canal to minimize fat embolization. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus regarding the timing of bilateral TKA in Ontario. Furthermore, many surgeons are not overdrilling or suctioning the femoral canal despite evidence in the literature that overdrilling may be beneficial in decreasing fat embolization. Further research is required to compare the risk of complications of bilateral TKA after staged versus simultaneous TKA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".