The effect of anteroposterior laxity on the range of movement and knee function following a cruciate-retaining total knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount of anteroposterior laxity required for a good range of movement and knee function in a cruciate-retaining total knee replacement (TKR) continues to be debated. We undertook a retrospective study to evaluate the effects of anteroposterior laxity on the range of movement and knee function in 55 patients following the e-motion cruciate-retaining TKR with a minimum follow-up of two years. The knees were divided into stable (anteroposterior translation, < or = 10 mm, 38 patients) and unstable (anteroposterior translation, > 10 mm, 17) groups based on the anteroposterior laxity, measured using stress radiographs. We compared the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, the Western Ontario MacMasters University Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, weight-bearing flexion, non-weight-bearing flexion and the reduction of flexion under weight-bearing versus non-weight-bearing conditions, which we referred to as delta flexion, between the two groups at the final follow-up. There were no differences between the stable and unstable groups with regard to the mean HHS and WOMAC total scores, as well as weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing flexion (p = 0.277, p = 0.082, p = 0.095 and p = 0.646, respectively). However, the stable group had a better WOMAC function score and less delta flexion than the unstable group (p = 0.011 and p = 0.005, respectively). Our results suggest that stable knees with laxity < or = 10 mm have a good functional outcome and less reduction of flexion under weight-bearing conditions than unstable knees with laxity > 10 mm following an e-motion cruciate-retaining TKR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".