Simultaneous cemented and cementless total knee replacement in the same patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this prospective, randomised study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results comparing the identical cemented or cementless NexGen total knee prostheses implanted bilaterally in the same patient. Sequential simultaneous bilateral total knee replacements were performed in 50 patients (100 knees). There were 39 women and 11 men with a mean age of 58.4 years (51 to 67) who received a cemented prosthesis in one knee and a cementless prosthesis in the other. The mean follow-up was 13.6 years (13 to 14). At final review, the mean Knee Society scores (96.2 (82 to 100) versus 97.7 (90 to 100)), the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (34.5 (4 to 59) versus 35.6 (5 to 51)), the mean ranges of knee movement (124° (100° to 140°) versus 128° (110° to 140°)), mean patient satisfaction (8.1 (SD 1.9) versus 8.3 (SD 1.7)), and radiological results were similar in both groups. The rate of survival of the femoral components was 100% in both groups at 14 years. The rate of survival of the cemented tibial component was 100% and 98% in the cementless tibial component. No osteolysis was identified in either group. Our data have shown no advantage of cementless over cemented components in total knee replacement.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".