Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Use of a Constrained Condylar Knee Prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The major goals of revision total knee arthroplasty include good clinical and radiographic results with a low complication rate. A retrospective review of a case series of revision total knee arthroplasties with a constrained condylar prosthesis by a single surgeon was performed in order to ascertain the role of this prosthesis and to determine whether it provided satisfactory results. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients (114 knees) underwent revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. There were eighty-four men and thirteen women. The mean age at the time of the index surgery was sixty-five years. The primary diagnosis was predominantly osteoarthritis (96%). The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening of a component (54%). The mean time from the primary to the revision total knee arthroplasty was 6.1 years (range, six weeks to twenty-four years). The mean duration of follow-up was 7.2 years. RESULTS: The mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score and mean Knee Society knee and functional scores were 31, 35, and 16 points, respectively, before the operation and 83, 90, and 64 points at the time of the final follow-up. The preoperative and postoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were 85 and 34.5 points, respectively. The complication rate was 9%. Five knees (4%) had a rerevision, and three knees (2.6%) had a quadriceps tendon rupture. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with revision or radiographic failure as the end point, revealed that the ten-year rate of survival of the components was 96% (95% confidence interval, 94% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis had reproducible clinical success, but a complication rate of up to 9% can be expected at intermediate-term follow-up.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".