Outcomes of unilateral and bilateral total knee arthroplasty in 238,373 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose - There is no consensus about the outcome of simultaneous vs. staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We examined this issue by analyzing 238,373 patients. Patients and methods - Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were evaluated for TKA patients (unilateral: 206,771; simultaneous bilateral: 6,349; staged bilateral: 25,253) from the Canadian Hospital Morbidity Database for fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2012-2013. Outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and hospital TKA volume. Results - Simultaneous bilateral TKA patients were younger than staged bilateral TKA patients (median 64 years vs. 66 years), were more likely to be male (41% vs. 39%), and had a lower frequency of having ≥1 comorbid condition (2.9% vs. 4.2%). They also had a higher frequency of blood transfusions (41% vs. 19%), a shorter median length of stay (6 days vs. 8 days), a higher frequency of transfer to a rehabilitation facility (46% vs. 9%), and a lower frequency of knee infection (0.5% vs. 0.9%) than staged bilateral TKA patients, but they had higher rate of cardiac complications within 90 days (2.0% vs. 1.7%). Simultaneous patients had higher in-hospital mortality compared to the second TKA in staged patients (0.16% vs. 0.06%), but they had similar rates of in-hospital mortality compared to unilateral patients (0.16% vs. 0.14%). The cumulative 3-year revision rate was highest in the unilateral group (2.3%), but it was similar in the staged and simultaneous bilateral groups (1.4%). Interpretation - We found important differences between the outcomes of simultaneous and staged bilateral TKA. Further clarification of outcomes would be best determined in an adequately powered randomized trial, which would remove the selection bias inherent in this retrospective study design.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".