Posterior Cruciate–retaining, Rotating-platform Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum 4-year Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotating-platform, mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty was initially developed using a posterior cruciate-sacrificing technique and design. Posterior cruciate-substituting and -retaining, rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty designs were developed later. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a minimum 4-year follow-up of total knee arthroplasty performed with a posterior cruciate-retaining, rotating-platform design.The 4- to 6-year results of 123 patients undergoing 152 consecutive total knee arthroplasties using a posterior cruciate-retaining, rotating-platform design were evaluated. Patients were evaluated clinically for need for revision, and clinical outcome measures included the pain and functional components of the Knee Society Score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Short Form 36 Health Survey, and the University of California Los Angeles activity-level scores. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening, component positioning changes, femoral-tibial alignment, and osteolysis. One knee was lost to follow-up at an average of 5.2 years. No tibial or femoral components required revision. Three polyethylene liners were revised: 2 for infection and 1 for bearing spinout. Average range of motion was 120° (range, 70°-135°). Minor areas of osteolysis were noted around 4.5% of knees, and minimal incomplete radiolucencies were noted around 50% of components. The posterior cruciate-retaining, rotating-platform knee prosthesis demonstrated excellent survivorship at 4- to 6-year follow-up.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".