Total Knee Replacement System with a Ceramic Femoral Component versus Two Traditional Metallic Designs: A Prospective Short-Term Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the short-term outcome of the Multigen Plus system using a symmetric ceramic femoral component with that of 2 metallic total knee replacement (TKR) systems. METHODS: 60 patients (62 knees) with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis underwent primary TKR using the Genia system (n=20), the Multigen Plus system (n=17), and the Multigen Plus system with a ceramic femoral component (n=25). Outcome was evaluated pre- and post-operatively (at 3, 12, and 24 months) using the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) score. RESULTS: The 3 groups did not differ significantly at all 4 time points in terms of the HSS score, WOMAC score, and SF-36 score. The range of motion was significantly less in patients treated with the Genia system. Postoperatively, the HSS and WOMAC scores improved significantly in all 3 groups, whereas the SF-36 score improved significantly (at 12 and 24 months) only in patients treated with the Multigen Plus system with a ceramic femoral component. The implant position in most patients was optimal. All radiolucent lines were within 1 mm and did not progress. CONCLUSION: The short-term outcome of the 3 TKR systems was comparable. Ceramic femoral components performed comparably to traditional metallic designs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".