MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981321515 · doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2358-8

Assessing the Gold Standard: A Review of 253 Two-Stage Revisions for Infected TKA

2012· review· en· W1981321515 on OpenAlexaff
Tahir Mahmud, Matthew C. Lyons, Douglas D.R. Naudie, Steven J. MacDonald, Richard W. McCalden

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeriprostheticSurvivorship curveSurgeryStage (stratigraphy)WOMACGold standard (test)Orthopedic surgeryArthroplastyOsteoarthritisCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection has been the leading cause of failure following TKA surgery. The gold standard for infection control has been a two-staged revision TKA. There have been few reports on mid- to long-term survivorship, functional outcomes, and fate of patients with a failed two-stage revision TKA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Therefore, we determined (1) the mid-term survivorship of two-stage revision TKA, (2) the function of patients in whom infection was controlled, and (3) the outcome of patients with a failed two-stage revision due to recurrent infection. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 239 patients who underwent 253 two-stage revision TKAs for periprosthetic infection. There were 239 patients (253 knees), 104 men and 135 women, with a mean age of 70 ± 10 years at the time of two-stage revision and a mean BMI of 31.53 ± 6.74 kg/m2. During followup, we obtained WOMAC and The Knee Society Clinical Rating Scores and radiographs. The minimum followup was 1 year (median, 4 years; range, 1-17 years). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients experienced a failed two-staged TKA. Sixteen patients experienced failure due to recurrent sepsis. There were 17 failures for aseptic causes. CONCLUSION: The overall infection-free survivorship for two-stage revision TKA was 85% at 5 years and 78% at 10 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations149
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207