The John Insall Award :Patella Resurfacing versus Nonresurfacing in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. This study evaluates the results of resurfacing and nonresurfacing the patella in a randomized controlled, clinical trial at a minimum of 10 years followup. One hundred knees (90 patients) with osteoarthritis were enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial using a posterior–cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Patients were randomized to receive resurfacing or retention of the patella. Evaluations were done preoperatively and yearly, up to a minimum of 10 years (range, 10.1–11.5 years) postoperatively. Disease-specific (Knee Society clinical rating score) and functional (stair climbing, flexion/extension torques, patellar examination) outcomes were measured. Patient satisfaction, anterior knee pain, and patellofemoral questionnaires were completed. Intraoperative grading of the articular cartilage was done. No patients were lost to followup; 45 patients remained alive. Nine revisions (in nine of 90 knees; 10%) were done in seven patients in the nonresurfaced group (15% of knees) and in two patients in the resurfaced group (5% of knees). No significant difference was found between the groups regarding revision rates, Knee Society clinical rating scores, and functional, patient satisfaction, anterior knee pain, patellofemoral, and radiographic outcomes. Intraoperative cartilage quality was not a predictor of outcome. This study currently is the longest followup of a randomized controlled, clinical trial that examines patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. The results showed no significant difference between the groups for all outcome measures at a minimum of 10 years of followup.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it