Range of Motion in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Comparison of High-Flexion and Standard Cruciate-Retaining Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Range of motion after a total knee arthroplasty is an important indicator of clinical outcome. Recently, a high-flexion posterior cruciate ligament-retaining knee prosthesis was designed to allow greater flexion after total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare range of motion and functional outcomes in patients who received either a high-flexion cruciate-retaining or a standard cruciate-retaining knee replacement. METHODS: Fifty knees that had a total knee arthroplasty with a high-flexion design and fifty that had a total knee arthroplasty with a standard design were included in this study and were followed prospectively for a minimum of two years. The arcs of maximal non-weight-bearing passive flexion and weight-bearing flexion were measured, and the number of knees that allowed the patients to kneel and sit cross-legged in comfort was determined. In addition, the functional outcomes in these two groups were assessed with use of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores. RESULTS: At the time of the final follow-up, the average maximal non-weight-bearing flexion was 135.3 degrees for the knees in the high-flexion group and 134.3 degrees for the knees in the standard group; the difference was not significant. Moreover, no significant difference was found between the groups in terms of weight-bearing flexion (124.8 degrees in the high-flexion group and 123.7 degrees in the standard group) and the number of knees that allowed kneeling and sitting cross-legged. The average Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 94.4 points in the high-flexion group and 92.4 points in the standard group; the difference was not significant. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores also showed no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: For knees managed with a cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty, those that had the high-flexion design and those that had the standard design were found to have a similar range of motion under both non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing conditions. Moreover, no significant difference was found in terms of the other functional outcomes examined.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".