Postthrombotic Syndrome After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) has been addressed in patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), less information is available on the incidence in patients who develop asymptomatic DVT after major hip or knee arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether symptomatic PTS occurs more frequently in patients who develop DVT after hip or knee arthroplasty than those who are free of DVT and to provide an estimate of the incidence of PTS in patients who had undergone major hip or knee arthroplasty and had proximal DVT, distal (calf) DVT, or no DVT. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study conducted at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton, Ontario, and the Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty-five subjects who had undergone major hip or knee arthroplasty 2 to 7 years previously and had routine predischarge venography showing proximal DVT (n = 25), distal DVT (n = 66), or no DVT (n = 164) were enrolled from March 1993 through December 1998. The presence of symptomatic PTS confirmed by the presence of objectively confirmed venous valvular incompetence was ascertained. RESULTS: The rates of PTS were low and not significantly different among the 3 subgroups: 1 (4.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1%-20.4%) of 25 patients with proximal DVT, 4 (6.1%, 95% CI = 1.7%-14.8%) of 66 patients with distal DVT, and 7 (4.3%, 95% CI = 1.7%-8.6%) of 164 patients with no DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic PTS is an uncommon complaint after major hip or knee arthroplasty. Patients who develop postoperative proximal or distal DVT and who receive 6 to 12 weeks of anticoagulant therapy are not predisposed to PTS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".