Comparison of outcomes after bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty using posterior-substituting versus cruciate-retaining prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of posterior-substituting (PS) with cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee prostheses after the elimination of confounding variables. METHODS: Between January 2008 and June 2012, a total of 32 subjects who had bilateral arthritis of the knees agreed to have one knee replaced with a PS total knee design and the other with a CR design. In addition to postoperative complications, clinical outcomes (Knee Society Score, Range of Motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, as well as radiographic findings) were evaluated preoperatively, and at 2-week, 3-month, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: At the 24-month follow-up interval, no benefit of CR design was observed over PS design regarding functional assessment, patient satisfaction, or postoperative complication. However, the PS total knee design did display statistically significant improvements in range of motion as compared with the CR design. CONCLUSION: While comparable regarding supporting good clinical outcomes, the PS design does appear to support significantly improved postoperative range of motion when compared with the CR design.
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) | 0.001 | 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".