CLINICAL OUTCOME FOLLOWING BILATERAL STAGED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY USING THE ANATOMIC MODULAR KNEE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical outcome studies have shown excellent results following unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A wide Pub Med search failed to find any literature on the outcome of results following bilateral staged TKA. Aim: To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing bilateral staged TKA. Material & Methods: Patients who underwent bilateral staged TKA between 1994 – 2002 were assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and MacMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scoring systems. They were also asked regarding which TKA they considered ‘better’ and why. Results: We clinically reviewed 110 patients who underwent bilateral staged TKA. The mean clinical follow-up time was 5.13 years. The mean pre-operative KSS was 95.8 for the right knee and 95.5 for the left knee. The mean post-operative KSS was 154.1 for the right knee and 155.9 for the left knee. Patients mean postoperative WOMAC scores for the right knee were; Pain – 1.67, Stiffness – 1.17 and Function – 10.78. Patients mean post-operative WOMAC scores for the left knee were, Pain – 1.77, Stiffness – 1.14 and Function – 10.69. Objectively there was no statistical significance between right and left KSS pre-operatively. There was no statistical significance between right and left KSS and WOMAC scores post-operatively. Subjectively, 44 patients reported their first TKA was ‘better’ than their second. 48 patients reported both TKA’s were as good as each other. 18 patients reported their second TKA was ‘better’ than their first. The 2 main reasons why one TKA was better than the other were pain and range of movement. Conclusion: Objectively, staged bilateral TKA results in equally good outcome. Subjectively, the first TKA is ‘better’ or equal to the second TKA in 84% of cases. We feel that this information is important during counseling of patients undergoing bilateral staged TKA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".