The extensile rectus snip exposure in revision of total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Revision of a total knee arthroplasty may require an extensile approach to permit a satisfactory exposure without compromising the attachment of the patellar tendon. It has been assumed that a rectus snip is a relatively benign form of release, but the effect of using this approach on function, pain and patient satisfaction is not known. From January 1997 to December 1999, 107 patients who underwent revision of total knee arthroplasty were followed up at a minimum of two years (mean 40.5 months) and assessed by the Oxford Hip Score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short-Form (SF)-12 and patient satisfaction. Co-morbidity, surgical exposure, the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee scores and the range of movement were also used. A standard medial parapatellar approach was used in 57 patients and the rectus snip in 50. The two groups were equivalent for age, sex and co-morbidity scores. The WOMAC function, pain, stiffness and satisfaction scores demonstrated no statistical difference. The use of a rectus snip as an extensile procedure has no effect on outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".