Computer-Navigated Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature lacks studies that confirm whether the improved radiographic alignment that can be achieved with computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty improves patients’ activities of daily living or the durability of total knee prostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine whether computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty improves the clinical function, alignment, and survivorship of the components. METHODS: We prospectively compared the results of 520 patients with osteoarthritis who underwent computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty for one knee and conventional total knee arthroplasty for the other. The assignment of the knee to navigation or not was done randomly. There were 452 women (904 knees) and sixty-eight men (136 knees) with a mean age of sixty-eight years (range, forty-nine to eighty-eight years) at the time of the index arthroplasty. The mean follow-up period was 10.8 years (range, ten to twelve years). The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with the rating system of the Knee Society and with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at three months, one year, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Total knee scores, knee function scores, pain scores, WOMAC scores, knee motion, and activity scores did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups preoperatively or at the time of the final follow-up. Alignment and the survivorship of the components were not significantly different between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship with revision as the end point at 10.8 years was 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.00) in the computernavigated total knee arthroplasty group and 99.2% (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.00) in the conventional total knee arthroplasty group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated no difference in clinical function or alignment and survivorship of the components between the knees that underwent computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty and those that underwent conventional total knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".