MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2341060903

Effect of patellar denervation on mid-term results after non-resurfaced total knee arthroplasty. A randomised, controlled trial.

2015· article· en· W2341060903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdullah Alomran

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenervationWOMACTotal knee arthroplastyAnterior knee painArthroplastyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryRange of motionProspective cohort studyOsteoarthritisAnesthesiaPatellaInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Aim of this study is to determine the clinical effect of circumpatellar electrocautery on cases undergoing non-resurfaced total knee arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 184 patients undergoing non-resurfaced total knee arthroplasty were included and randomized into two, patient and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel groups: 92 patient in denervation group & 92 patients in no-denervation group. Pre-operative and final most recent follow up's Western Ontario McMaster score and anterior knee pain rating were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between both groups preoperatively in anterior knee pain, WOMAC score, or range of motion. While on all the three parameters there was a statistically significant difference in improvement in favor of denervation group. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrated that post-operative functional score and anterior knee pain score were significantly better in electrocauterised group. This shows that patellar denervation significantly improve clinical outcome and decreased anterior knee pain in NR-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 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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→