Comparing Patient Outcomes After THA and TKA: Is There a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Both primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty relieve pain, restore function, and increase mobility. Despite these successes, there is controversy as to whether THA or TKA provides greater or similar improvement. We therefore compared primary THA and TKA patient results in terms of (1) willingness to have surgery again; (2) WOMAC change score; (3) whether expectations were met; and (4) satisfaction. Patients undergoing primary THA were more willing to undergo their surgery again (THA 96%, TKA 89%), demonstrated greater WOMAC change scores, more frequently reported their expectations were met (THA 78%, TKA 70%), and expressed greater overall satisfaction (THA 89%, TKA 81%). In addition, patients undergoing THA expressed higher satisfaction with pain reduction while performing activities (ie, walking, stairs, and sitting/lying) and their ability to perform daily activities (ie, stairs, transportation, getting up, lying in bed, and light domestic duties) when compared with patients undergoing TKA. Our data suggest primary THA offers superior short-term outcomes when compared with primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See 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 | 0.016 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".