The low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have examined the outcome of 400 consecutive patients who underwent total knee replacement with the Low Contact Stress mobile-bearing system between 1993 and 1994 and were followed up for a minimum of ten years. All operations were performed by surgeons in Christchurch, New Zealand, who used no other knee prosthesis during the study time. At ten years after operation 238 patients (244 knees) remained for independent clinical and radiological assessment. There was a significant improvement (p < 0.001) in the postoperative knee scores at one, three, seven and ten years, although a slight deterioration in the score occurred between seven and ten years which did not reach statistical significance. The survival for polyethylene wear or loosening was 97% (95% CI 96 to 98) and survival using reoperation for any cause was 92% (95% CI 90 to 94) at 12 years. Polyethylene wear was more common in the meniscal-bearing component, with five knees requiring revision and a further eight demonstrating early wear. Osteolysis was not seen in the rotating platform component, but was present in three of the meniscal-bearing knees. There was no association between the radiological alignment at one year and those knees that subsequently required revision. However, there was an association between the overall limb alignment and the Western Ontario McMasters University score (p < 0.001). The Low Contact Stress mobile-bearing total knee replacement has proved to be a reliable implant at ten years when used in primary knee replacement irrespective of the deformity and diagnosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".