Comparison of patient reported outcomes after Triathlon<sup>®</sup> and Kinemax Plus prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Triathlon(®) (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, US) total knee replacement was designed to improve patient function and survivorship. The aim of this study was to determine whether the Triathlon(®) prosthesis produces better patient reported outcomes than a previous design by the same manufacturer, the Kinemax Plus. METHODS: The outcome of 233 knees of patients with a mean age of 68 years (range: 40-80 years) who received the Kinemax Plus prosthesis were compared with the outcomes of 220 knees of patients with a mean age of 70 years (range: 42-90 years) who received the Triathlon(®) prosthesis. Data were collected via postal questionnaire prior to surgery as well as at 8-12 weeks and at 1 year following surgery. Validated questionnaires were used including the WOMAC(®) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) pain and function scales, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score quality of life scale and the self-administered patient satisfaction scale. RESULTS: This study found that patients who had the Triathlon(®) prosthesis had significantly better pain relief (p<0.0001), function (p=0.028), knee related quality of life (p<0.0001) and satisfaction (p=0.0003) at three months after surgery than those who received the Kinemax Plus prosthesis. In addition, knee related quality of life (p=0.002) and satisfaction (p=0.021) were significantly higher at one year after surgery in Triathlon(®) CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that return to function and reduction in pain may occur more quickly in patients with a Triathlon(®) prosthesis than in those with the Kinemax Plus.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".