MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021489612 · doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3589-5

Alignment in knee flexion position during navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty

2015· article· en· W2021489612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jae-Hyuk Yang, Anshul Dahuja, Jin-Kak Kim, Se-Hyeok Yun, Jung-Ro Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValgusMedicineOrthodonticsCondyleOsteoarthritisTotal knee arthroplastyKnee flexionProsthesisArthroplastyRadiographyAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the lower limb alignment in knee flexion position after navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty using the gap technique and to identify the correlative factors. METHODS: One hundred and twenty consecutive osteoarthritic knees (120 patients) were prospectively enrolled for intraoperative data collection. All TKA surgeries were performed using the navigation system (OrthoPilot™, version 4.0; B. Braun Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany). Before and after final prosthesis implantation, the lower limb navigation alignment in both knee extension (0°) and knee flexion (90°) position was recorded. The knee flexion alignment was divided into three groups: varus, neutral and valgus alignment. To determine the factors of the alignment in knee flexion position, preoperative demographics, radiologic and intraoperative data were obtained. Pearson's correlation (r) analysis was performed to find the correlation. The Knee Society Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared between groups. RESULTS: Although all postoperative extension alignment was within neutral position (between -2° and +2°), postoperative knee flexion alignment was divided into three groups: varus (≤-3°), 24 cases (20 %); neutral (between -2° and +2°), 85 cases (70.8 %) and valgus (≥+3°) alignment, 11 cases (9.2 %). There were a good correlation of alignment in knee flexion position with the rotation of femoral component relative to posterior condylar axis (r = -0.502, p = 0.000) and weak correlations with posterior femoral cut thickness (lateral condyle) (r = 0.207, p = 0.026), medial flexion (90°) gap after femoral component rotation adjustment (r = 0.276, p = 0.003). Other variables did not show correlations. There were no statistical clinical differences between varus, neutral and valgus knee flexion alignment groups. CONCLUSION: About 30 % of the cases showed malalignment of more than 3° in knee flexion position although with neutral alignment in extension position. The knee flexion alignment had a good correlation with the rotation of femoral component relative to posterior condylar axis. Neutral alignment in knee flexion position may be adjusted by femoral component rotation especially by the use of navigation system. 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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