Artroplastía total de rodilla con iserto tibial ultracongruente. Seguimiento a dos años
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No existe un criterio para seleccionar un sistema de estabilizacion posterior para una artroplastia, el sistema ultracongruente puede evitar complicaciones observadas con el cajon y poste. Objetivo: Valorar el estado clinico-funcional de la artroplastia total de rodilla con el sistema ultracongruente y comparar los resultados con los de la literatura internacional. Material y metodos: Se realizo un estudio retrospectivo con analisis descriptivo y comparativo de las artroplastias totales de rodilla con el sistema Consensus® , para determinar su tiempo de cirugia, rango de movilidad, dolor, calificacion del Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) y nivel de satisfaccion. Resultados: Sesenta y seis artroplastias, edad promedio de 70.58 anos, 45.5% derechas y 54.5% izquierdas, tiempo quirurgico de 76.84 minutos, dolor de 2.02 en la escala visual analogica, WOMAC total de 17.11, con un rango de movilidad de 96.5° ± 14.04. 92% de los pacientes se encuentran satisfechos con el procedimiento quirurgico. Conclusiones: La protesis con inserto ultracongruente es una opcion eficaz para el alivio del dolor en los pacientes con patologia de rodilla. Con resultados clinico-funcionales similares a los reportados con otros sistemas de estabilizacion, es bien aceptada por los pacientes. Se recomienda como una alternativa para evitar las posibles complicaciones que ocurren con el sistema de cajon y poste
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".