MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2256793792

FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME FOLLOWING RE REVISION TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY – RESULTS AT 3 TO 5 YEARS

2018· article· en· W2256793792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asit Shah, R Sunderam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxford knee scoreWOMACProsthesisArthroplastyKnee replacementRadiological weaponOsteoarthritisSurgeryCohortTotal knee replacement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: As the age for performing a primary knee replacement is gradually falling there is increase need and demand for revision total knee replacement and subsequent revisions thereafter. There are very few published studies showing the outcome of re revision knee replacement surgery. Aim: We aim to show functional outcome of 21 patients at 3 to 5 years after undergoing Re revision knee arthroplasty. Methods: We defined re revision as a procedure where there was exchange of either one or both Tibial and Femoral components using a modular revision system. We included all patients undergoing re revision knee replacement and had complete records & X rays . We excluded patients with incomplete records, those who could not be assessed due to medical infirmity or other reasons. We also excluded patients with 2 stage revision knee replacement for infection. This left us with 21 patients in our cohort operated between 1996–2002. The patients were scored pre operatively using Knee society score ( KSS) and Western Ontario and McMasters Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Patients were assessed with same scoring system post operatively at 3 months, 1 year and annually there after. Post op x rays were reviewed by Knee society Radiological Evaluation. Results: 18 modular revision prosthesis ( Co ordinate ultra, DePuy) and 3 rotating hinge (S Rom) prosthesis were used. The mean follow up was 3.5 years range from 11 months to 5.7 years. The mean post operative KSS score improved to 83 from pre op 41. Final post operative WOMAC scores for pain 12.3, Stiffness 5.6, Function are 47.1. We had few minor complication not requiring further surgery. Overall in 15 patients (71.43%) had a statistically significant improvement at latest follow up. 4 patients (19%) had moderate improvement and 2 patients ( 8%) had no improvement in scores. Conclusion: We conclude that re revision knee arthroplasty provides satisfactory pain relief and knee stability. As 71% of our cohort improved significantly we continue to support the clinical use of this procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→