Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis have Similar Excellent Outcomes after Total Knee Replacement Compared with Patients with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although new treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are extremely effective in preventing disease progression, rates of total knee replacement (TKR) continue to rise. The ongoing need for TKR is problematic, especially as functional outcomes in patients with RA have been reported to be worse than in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this study is to assess pain, function, and quality of life 2 years after TKR in contemporary patients with RA compared with patients with OA. METHODS: Primary TKR cases enrolled between May 1, 2007 and July 1, 2010 in a single institution TKR registry were eligible for this study. Validated RA cases were compared with OA at baseline and at 2 years. RESULTS: We identified 4456 eligible TKR, including 136 RA. Compared with OA, RA TKR had significantly worse preoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain (55.9 vs 46.6, p < 0.0001) and function (58.7 vs 47.3, p < 0.0001); however, there were no differences at 2 years. Within RA, there was no difference for patients who were treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs versus those who did not in pain (p = 0.41) or function (p = 0.39) at 2 years. In a multivariate regression, controlling for multiple potential confounders, there was no independent association of RA with 2-year pain (p = 0.18) or function (p = 0.71). Satisfaction was high for both RA and OA. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA undergoing primary TKR have excellent 2-year outcomes, comparable with OA, in spite of worse preoperative pain and function. In this contemporary cohort, RA is not an independent risk factor for poor outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".