Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prosthetic design for the use in primary total knee arthroplasty has evolved into designs that preserve the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and those in which the ligament is routinely sacrificed (posterior stabilized). In patients with a functional PCL the decision which design is chosen depends largely on the favour and training of the surgeon.The objective of this study is to determine whether the patient's perceived outcome and speed of recovery differs between a posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty and a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Patients who are admitted for primary unilateral TKA due to primary osteoarthrosis are included when the following inclusion criteria are met: non-fixed fixed varus or valgus deformity less than 10 degrees, age between 55 and 85 years, body mass index less than 35 kg/m(2) and ASA score (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) I or II. Patients are randomized in 2 groups. Patients in the posterior cruciate retaining group will receive a prosthesis with a posterior cut-out for the posterior cruciate ligament and relatively flat topography. In patients allocated to the posterior stabilized group, in which the posterior cruciate ligament is excised, the design may substitute for this function by an intercondylar tibial prominence that articulates with the femur in flexion. Measurements will take place preoperatively and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively.At all measurement points patient's perceived outcome will be assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcome measures are quality of life (SF-36) and physician reported functional status and range of motion as determined with the Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSS). DISCUSSION: In the current practice both posterior cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized designs for total knee arthroplasty are being used. To date no studies have been performed determining whether there is a difference in patient's perceived outcome between the two designs. Additionally, there is a lack of studies determining the speed of recovery in both designs as most studies only determine the final outcome. This randomised controlled study has been designed to determine whether the patient's perceived outcome and speed of recovery differs between a posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty and a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR1673).
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".