MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extensor Mechanism Failure Associated With Total Knee Arthroplasty: Prevention and Management

2003· review· en· W2332516498 on OpenAlexaff
David Parker, Michael Dunbar, Cecil H. Rorabeck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatella fractureSoft tissueSurgeryPatellaImplantLateral releaseTotal knee arthroplastyTendonArthroplastyPatellar tendonQuadriceps tendonComplicationLigament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensor mechanism complications are the most commonly reported reasons for revision surgery after total knee arthroplasty and are a frequent source of postoperative morbidity. Patellofemoral instability is the most commonly reported extensor mechanism complication and has multiple etiologies, including prosthetic malalignment and soft-tissue imbabalce. Patellar fracture or rupture of either the quadriceps or patellar tendon can cause catastrophic disruption of the extensor mechanism. Although some stable fractures can be successfully managed nonsurgically, displaced fractures or tendon rupture often lead to poor results. Other complications include patellar clunk and soft-tissue adhesions, prosthetic wear or loosening, and osteonecrosis. Increased understanding of implant alignment, rotation, and soft-tissue balance, as well as improved design of the trochlear groove of femoral implants and patellar components, has resulted in a decline in extensor mechanism complications. Appropriate prosthetic selection and meticulous surgical technique remain the keys to avoiding unsatisfactory results and revision surgery.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations145
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207