Outcomes of Total Knee Replacement after Patellofemoral Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the use of patellofemoral joint replacements and the cohort receiving them are the youngest of any of the groups of patients undergoing a knee arthroplasty. With more contemporary prostheses, progression of arthritis in other parts of the knee joint is becoming the predominant mechanism of failure. We conducted a multicenter retrospective comparative cohort study to discover whether the outcome of total knee replacement is compromised by prior patellofemoral joint arthroplasty. A total of 21 patients with a mean age of 61 years, who were revised from a patellofemoral joint replacement to a total knee replacement, were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent primary total knee replacement. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 years, the primary total knee replacement cohort had significantly better Oxford Knee Scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scores, pain visual analog scores, and EQ-5D scores. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction or EQ-5D visual analog scale.Our results indicate that although the revision of a patellofemoral joint replacement to a total knee replacement is a technically straightforward procedure, the eventual outcome may be less satisfactory when compared with a primary total knee replacement.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".