Are There Any Clinical and Radiographic Differences Between Quadriceps-sparing and Mini-medial Parapatellar Approaches in Total Knee Arthroplasty After a Minimum 5 Years of Follow-up?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the early clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using minimally invasive surgery techniques have been widely described, data on the mid- to long-term outcomes are limited. We designed a retrospective study to compare the two most common TKA techniques - The modified quadriceps-sparing (m-QS) approach and the mini-medial parapatellar (MMP) approach - In terms of the clinical and radiographic parameters, over a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. METHODS: The m-QS approach was used in 31 knees and the MMP approach, in 36 knees. Knees in both groups were compared for component position and alignment, knee alignment, length of the skin incision, range of motion, Visual Analog Scale score, muscle torques, Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and number of complications. RESULTS: There were no major intergroup differences in any of the clinical and radiographic outcomes assessed at the final follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of numbers studied, the m-QS group, which requires more technique, showed equivalent results with the MMP group in the postoperative 5 years. Preservation of the extensor mechanism in the m-QS approach could not ensure any improvement in the clinical outcomes during the mid-term follow-up duration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".