High-Flexion Total Knee Arthroplasty: Survivorship and Prevalence of Osteolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We are aware of no information about the mid-term performance of the high-flexion total knee arthroplasty, although early results have been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term results of high-flexion and conventional knee prostheses. METHODS: We prospectively compared the results of 100 patients with osteoarthritis who had received a NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (NexGen LPS) prosthesis in one knee and a NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized-Flex (NexGen LPS-Flex) prosthesis in the other. Seventy-five patients (150 knees) were women and twenty-five (fifty knees) were men. The mean age was sixty-five years (range, forty-eight to eighty-five years) at the time of the index procedure. The mean duration of follow-up was 10.3 years (range, ten to 10.6 years). The patients were assessed with radiographs, with the rating system of the Knee Society, and with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at three months, one year, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Total knee scores, knee function scores, pain scores, WOMAC scores, knee motion, and activity scores did not differ significantly between the two designs of the implants, on the basis of the numbers studied, either preoperatively or at the time of final follow-up. One knee in the NexGen LPS-Flex group was revised because of recurrent infection. No knee in either group had aseptic loosening of the components. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship at ten years postoperatively, with revision defined as the end point, was 100% (95% confidence interval, 94 to 100) for the NexGen LPS prosthesis and 99% (95% confidence interval, 93 to 100) for the NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: After a minimum duration of follow-up of ten years, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to implant survivorship, functional outcome, knee motion, or prevalence of osteolysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".