Internal Rotation of the Tibial Component is Frequent in Stiff Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stiffness complicating TKA is a complex and multifactorial problem. We suspected internally rotated components compromised motion because of pain, patellar maltracking, a tight medial flexion gap, and limited femoral rollback on a conforming lateral tibial condyle. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to determine: (1) the incidence of internal rotation of the femoral and tibial components in stiff TKAs; (2) if revision surgery that included correction of rotational positioning improved pain, ROM, and patellar tracking; and (3) if revision altered nonrotational radiographic parameters. METHODS: From a cohort of 52 patients with TKAs revised for stiffness, we performed CT scans of 34 before and 18 after revision to quantify rotational positioning of the femoral and tibial components using a previously validated scanning protocol. RESULTS: All 34 patients with TKAs had internal rotation of the summed values for tibial and femoral components (mean, 14.8°; range, 2.7°-33.7°) before revision for stiffness. The incidence of internal rotation was 24 of 34 femoral (mean, 3.1°; internal) and 33 of 34 tibial components (mean, 13.7° internal). Revision arthroplasty improved Knee Society function, knee, and pain scores. Mean extension improved from a contracture of 10.1° to 0.8° and flexion from 71.5° to 100°. Postrevision CT scans confirmed correction of component rotation. Nonrotational parameters were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend CT scanning of patients with stiff TKAs before surgical intervention to identify the presence of internally rotated components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".