Minimum Two-year Results of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Infectious or Non-infectious Causes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between the infected and non-infected groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study compared the clinical and radiographic results of 21 infected and 15 non-infected revision TKAs at a minimum 2-years follow-up. Clinical evaluations were assessed using the range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score. Radiologic evaluations were assessed using the radiographic results of the American Knee Society and joint line change. RESULTS: Patients operated for non-infectious causes had significantly better postoperative ROM than the infected group (infected group, 101.7°; non-infected group, 117.8°). The infected group achieved significantly poor HSS (79.2 vs. 85.5), KSKS (75.5 vs. 86.6), KSFS (76.9 vs. 85.5), WOMAC (30.3 vs. 21.2) scores than the non-infected group. Postoperative joint line elevation was lower in the infected versus non-infected group (0.5 mm vs. 2.1 mm), but there was no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Revision TKA is an effective treatment that can provide successful results in the infected as well as non-infected patients. The overall results of non-infected revision were more satisfactory than infected revision.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".