Patellar Options in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous options that need to be considered by the surgeon at the time of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). One needs to consider the reason for the revision, the type of patella in place, and the length of time the patella has been in place. The surgeon also needs to consider the status of the patellar bone stock, the stability of the patellar component (well-fixed or loose), and the component type (cemented or metal-backed). Assuming that the existing prosthesis is not metal-backed and has minimal PE wear, then it is preferable to retain a well-fixed all-PE cemented patellar button. However, if the button is metal-backed, then it probably is best to remove the button and replace it with an all-PE domed patellar component. Assuming more than 8 mm of patellar bone stock is remaining, it usually is best to cement an all-PE dome-shaped patella. However, if less than 8 mm is remaining, then that patient can be left with a patelloplasty, recognizing that this individual is going to continue with a high likelihood of anterior knee pain, subluxation, and poor functional results. In that situation, it may be preferable to consider a bone stock augmentation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".