Posterior Cruciate-retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty for Valgus Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The valgus, osteoarthritic knee is challenging technically and it is unknown whether and how technical and implant variables influence outcomes. We therefore determined the influence of surgical technique of soft tissue balancing and patient and implant factors from 100 unselected cruciate-retaining TKAs for valgus osteoarthritis in patients younger than 75 years of age. From 1987 to 1990, lateral soft tissue balancing was done with an outside-in progression in which the lateral collateral ligament and popliteus were typically released from the femur. From 1991 to 1994, an inside-out technique was use in which the lateral collateral ligament and/or popliteus were typically preserved. The minimum followup was 0.1 year (mean, 8.2 years; range, 0.1-18.2 years). Fourteen of 16 revisions were for wear and/or instability. Popliteus release, lateral collateral ligament release, or greater polyethylene shelf age increased the risk of revision. At 10 postoperative years, survival (end point, revision) was 89% (100 knees), 94% when the shelf age was less than 1 year (n = 73 knees), 97% when the popliteus or lateral collateral ligament was not released (n = 57 knees), and 100% when both conditions were met (n = 39 knees). Cruciate-retaining implants can be successfully used in knees with any degree of valgus osteoarthritis and survival is improved when the surgeon preserves at least one of the structures providing lateral stability in flexion and uses polyethylene with a short shelf life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".