Simultaneous versus Staged Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An important source of debate in many orthopaedic practices is the choice of performing simultaneous or staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare simultaneous bilateral with staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty for peri-operative complication rates, infection rates and mortality outcomes. METHODS: All relevant citations were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE databases and the unpublished literature. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality and abstracted data was conducted independently by two reviewers. Data was categorized into subgroups and pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird's random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 18 articles were identified from 873 potentially relevant titles and selected for inclusion in the primary meta-analyses. The incidence of mortality was significantly higher in the simultaneous group at 30 days (RR [relative risk] 3.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-8.02, p = 0.001, I (2) = 59%, n = 67,691 patients), 3 months (RR 2.45, 95% CI 2.15-2.79, p < 0.00001, I (2) = 0%, n = 66,142 patients) and 1 year (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.66-2.06, p < 0.001, I (2) = 0%, n = 65,322 patients) after surgery. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in regards to in-hospital mortality rates (R 1.18, 95% CI 0.74-1.88, p = 0.48, I (2) = 0%, n = 33,814 patients). In addition, there was no increased risk of deep vein thrombosis, cardiac complication, and pulmonary embolism or infection rates in either comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analysis suggest that simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty has a significantly higher rate of mortality at 30 days, 3 months and 1 year after surgery, but similar infection and complication rates in comparison to staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".