MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990192113 · doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2687-5

The difference between weight‐bearing and non‐weight‐bearing alignment in patient‐specific instrumentation planning

2013· article· en· W1990192113 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Paternostre, Pierre‐Emmanuel Schwab, Emmanuel Thienpont

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-Luc
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight-bearingMedicineRadiographySignificant differenceOrthodonticsValgusBearing (navigation)Total knee arthroplastyOsteoarthritisLoad bearingSurgeryMaterials scienceInternal medicinePathologyComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Retrospective study to analyse the difference between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing alignment in osteoarthritic knees planned for patient-specific instrumented (PSI) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of the study is to observe whether a difference in alignment can be linked to arthritis staging or zone mechanical axis. METHODS: Full-leg standing radiographs and non-weight-bearing MRI of the whole leg were compared for hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, measured according to Moreland criteria, in seventy osteoarthritic patients. Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) staging and classification according to zone mechanical axis with Kennedy zones was done. RESULTS: A mean preoperative HKA angle on standing radiographs of 176.4° ± 7.2° was measured compared to 176.4° ± 6.9° for the MRI whole-leg HKA angle. A difference of 0°-1° was observed in 54% of patients when comparing the weight-bearing with the non-weight-bearing HKA angle. Twenty-three per cent had a difference of 2° and another 23 % a difference of 3° or more. In female patients, the dynamic load pattern of weight-bearing increases the HKA angle due to convex side soft tissue laxity both in varus and valgus knees. More important differences were observed in the KL stage 3 and 4 patients (P < 0.05) and with a load-bearing axis outside of the articular surface (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Surgeons should be aware that there is a difference between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing alignment in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence 3 and 4 with a load-bearing axis outside of the articular surface (Kennedy 0 or 1 or 5). According to this study, these changes seem related to the amount of articular wear and the load-bearing axis. This is important for the preoperative planning process in PSI-assisted TKA. More concave side ligamentous release or more constraint can be necessary than imagined based on the PSI alignment result. Full-leg standing radiographs should be performed for PSI-assisted TKAs to analyse the position of the load-bearing axis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations63
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207