The medial border of the tibial tuberosity as an auxiliary tool for tibial component rotational alignment during total knee arthroplasty (TKA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to quantify the amount of ensuing internal rotation of the tibial component when positioned along the medial border of the tibial tubercle, thus establishing a reproducible intraoperative reference for tibial component rotational alignment during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The angle formed from the tibial geometric centre to the intersection of both lines from the middle of the tibial tuberosity and its medial border was measured in 50 patients. The geometric centre was determined on an axial CT slice at 10 mm below the lateral tibial plateau and transposed to a slice at the level of the most prominent part of the tibial tuberosity. Similar measurements were taken in 25 patients after TKA, in order to simulate the intraoperative appearance of the tibia after making its proximal resection. RESULTS: This angle was found to be similar (n.s.) in normal and post-TKA tibiae [median 20.4° (range 15°-24°) vs. 20.7° (range 16°-25°), respectively]. In 89.3 % of the patients, the angle ranged from 17° to 24°. No statistical difference (p n.s.) was found between women and men in both normal [median -20.7° (range 16°-25°) vs. 19.9° (range 15°-24°)] and post-TKA tibiae [median 21.4° (range 19°-24°) vs. 20° (range 16°-25°)]. CONCLUSION: This study found that in 90 % of the patients, the medial border of the tibial tuberosity is internally rotated 17°-24° in relation to the line connecting the middle of the tuberosity to the tibial geometric centre. Since this anatomical landmark may be more easily identifiable intraoperatively than the commonly used "medial 1/3", it can provide a better quantitative reference point and help surgeons achieve a more accurate tibial implant rotational position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cohort and case control studies, Level III.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".