Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Replacement: A Prospective Study of 150 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety of simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: 124 women and 26 men (mean age, 66 years) underwent simultaneous bilateral TKR for tricompartmental osteoarthritis using a posteriorstabilised, high-flexion implant. All patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography for detection of any silent cardiac comorbidity by a cardiologist. None had any adverse effect after testing. Five patients had positive outcome and underwent coronary angiography to detect any significant coronary blockage. Functional outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Tranexamic acid was given intravenously to reduce peri-operative blood loss. Femoral blocks and patient-controlled analgesia were used to facilitate early recovery. Aggressive physiotherapy was allowed. Patients were followed up at months 3, 6, and 12, and yearly thereafter. RESULTS: At the 2-year follow-up, the mean range of motion improved from 95º to 129º (p=0.032), the mean KSS from 120 to 158 (p<0.001), and the WOMAC from 51 to 88 (p=0.002). One patient developed patellar crepitus at week 6, which resolved with conservative treatment. Another patient developed infection in both knees at month 6. Despite salvage procedures, infection recurred after 3 months and the patient underwent bilateral arthrodesis. No patient developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or other cardiac event. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous bilateral TKR is safe for properly selected patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".