Revision in previously satisfied knee arthroplasty patients is the result of their call on the physician, not on pre-planned follow-up: A retrospective study of 181 patients who underwent revision within 2 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Degree of satisfaction with a knee arthroplasty is said to be correlated to reduced pain and better function. During a validation of the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register in 1997, previously operated patients were asked how satisfied they were with their knee. A subgroup of "satisfied" patients was identified who underwent revision within 2 years of having expressed satisfaction. Our aim was to study the revision diagnosis, to determine whether the problem leading to revision had been discovered as a result of routine follow-up, and also to find out when the symptoms leading to revision had started. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the medical records of 181 patients (181 knees), with a median age of 74 (31-88) years. 68% were women and the median time between primary operation and revision was 8 (3-21) years. RESULTS: Aseptic loosening (74/181) was the most common diagnosis. 2 cases were revised as a result of routine follow-up. 44% of the medical records included reports of pain in the replaced knee prior to answering the satisfaction questionnaire. INTERPRETATION: Few patients were admitted to knee revision surgery due to medical findings discovered during routine follow-up. The term "satisfaction" must be interpreted with care, as it seems to have a more complex meaning for the patients than absence of knee pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".