MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1598027728 · doi:10.3944/aott.v31i5.4249

Arthroscopic debridement of the knee for osteoarthritis (An analysis of unsatisfactory results)

2006· article· en· W1598027728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Osman Tuğrul Eren, Metin Küçükkaya, Mehmet Tezer

Bibliographic record

VenueDergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDebridement (dental)SurgeryArthroscopyOsteoarthritisRheumatoid arthritisArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Between June 1995 and December 1995, at the Orthopaedic and Arthitic Hospital, Toronto, Canada, on 217 knees in 191 patients, arthroscopic debridement was performed for degenera tive arth ritis those with pain and no obvious mechanical symptoms. All the patients were asked if they had any improvement from their arthroscopic procedure at the postoperative second month follow-up. Patients whose complaints remained unchanged or got worse, were included in this study. The problems which caused unsatisfactory results were not obtained. These unsatisfactory results had been followed up for two years. Complications are the obvious reasons for unsatisfactory results, in our study there were two commplications one superficial infection and one sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). İnfection does not seem to be problem in arthroscopic debridement but RSD should be well recognized in early stages because it would be very difficult to control symptoms when the condition persists untreated. 36 total knee arthroplasty were planned and 22 were done. Failures, other than complications, highly depend on the patients selection. If advanced degenerative changs are observed in both compartments on X-rays (bone to bone contact), arthroscopic debridement should not be tried for any reason such as general medical problems. Undiagnosed rheumatoid arthritis and reaction to the fluids are less effective for failures but should be tried on carefully selected symptomatic patients for either defining the pathology or treatment of osteoarthrits of the knee. Özet Bu çalışmanın verileri, Haziran 1995 ile Aralık 1995 tarihleri arasında Kanada, Toronto, Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hastanesinde osteoartroz sebebiyle anroskopik debridman yapılan 217 diz arasından alınmış-tır. Artroskopik girişim sonrası 2. ayda yapılan klinik muayenede ve görüşmede ağrı şikayetinde gerileme ol-mayan veya kötüleşen, retrospektif incelemede teşhis edilmiş sekonder artriti olmayan, bağ insiabilitesi saptanmayan, mekanik semptomları olmayan hastalar çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmaya dahil edilen hasta-ların hepsi artroskopik girişimden önce en az 2 yıldır diz ağrısından yakınmakta ve hepsine konservatif teda-vi yöntemlerinden bir tanesi (nonsteroid antiinflamatuar, fizik tedavi, eklem içi steroid tedavisi) denenmiş idi. 27 kadın, 14 ü erkek 41 hastanın 46 dizi çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 61 yıl (47-76) olarak tespit edildi. 46 (%2l) hastanın diz semptomlarında gerileme olmamış veya şikayetleri artmıştır. Artroskopi sonrası 4 hastada quadriceps atrofisi, 1 hastada yüzeyel infeksiyon, l hastada refleks sempatik distrofi (RSD) gelişti. 36 hastaya total diz artroplastisi planlandı ve 22 tanesine uygulandı. Hastaların doğru se-çimi anroskopik debridman ve lavajın başarısında en önemli faktör gibi görünmektedir. Radyolojik olarak her iki komparmanı ilgilendiren ileri artrozlu, ileri yaştaki, tek kompartmanı tutan kemik kontaktı olan, daha evvel debridman yapılan dizlere artroskopik debridman denenmemelidir. Artroskopik debridman orta ereceli artrozlarda gerek tedavide gerekse tanıda komplikasyonlar nadir olan bir girişimdir. Tanışı koyulamayan komplikasyonlar sonucu kötü etkilemektedir. Özellikle yeni yeni tanınmaya başlanan refleks sempatik distrofininde tanısında gecikilmemesi gerekir.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDergiPark (Istanbul University)→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→