Assessing the Gold Standard: A Review of 253 Two-Stage Revisions for Infected TKA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".