Functional outcome of staged bilateral knee replacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome between the first and second knee replacement in patients undergoing staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We identified 64 patients who had bilateral knee replacements and had at least one year of postoperative outcome studies. Data on pain scores, walking ability, use of walking aids, range of movement, instability, muscle strength, WOMAC® (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) scores, SF-12 (Short Form 12) scores, American Knee Society radiological scores and length of hospital stay (LOS) were recorded. The difference in data between the first and second knee was assessed. RESULTS: Groups remained statistically comparable between the first and second operation. Four outcomes showed a significant difference between the second and first knee. The mean score for postoperative walking ability was 4.83 (second knee) vs 4.51 (first knee) (p =0.03). The mean score for postoperative walking aid requirement was 5.73 (second knee) vs 5.46 (first knee) (p=0.01). The mean postoperative SF-12 score was 54.26 (second knee) vs 52.45 (first knee) (p=0.04). The mean LOS was 4.73 days (second knee) vs 6.16 days (first knee) (p =0.05). All other data comparisons were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have a reduced LOS and continue to improve after the second procedure with regards to walking ability, use of walking aids and psychological wellbeing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".