Effect of femoral component designs on the contact and tracking characteristics of the unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of 5 different femoral components used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the contact area and tracking characteristics of the nonresurfaced patella and to identify any design features that might adversely affect these characteristics. DESIGN: An in-vitro study. SETTING: The biomechanics laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal. SPECIMENS: Six fresh-frozen cadaveric knee-joint specimens. INTERVENTIONS: An unconstrained quadriceps simulator was used to apply the conditions of static lifting to the specimens first in their normal state and then sequentially implanted with femoral and tibial components of various designs (Miller/Galante II, Anatomic Modular Knee [AMK] System, Whiteside Ortholoc Modular, press-fit condylar and Insall-Burstein II). OUTCOME MEASURES: Patellar 3-dimensional tracking characteristics, determined by using a 6 degrees-of-freedom electromechanical goniometer attached directly to the patella, and patellar contact pressure measurements, obtained using low-range Fuji Prescale film. RESULTS: Articulation of the normal patella on a prosthetic femoral component resulted in alterations in the normal patellofemoral contact and tracking characteristics. The exact departure depended on the design of the prosthetic trochlea. Although all of the selected prostheses demonstrated satisfactory contact characteristics near extension, marked alterations occurred at higher flexion angles. With 90 degrees or more of flexion, there was incompatibility between the geometries of the prosthetic notch of 2 femoral designs (AMK and PFC) and the normal knee. CONCLUSION: The design of the prosthetic femoral component must be taken into account when determining whether or not to resurface the patella at the time of TKA.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".