Conventional versus computer-navigated TKA: a prospective randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the midterm results of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implanted with a specific computer navigation system in a group of patients (NAV) and to assess the same prosthesis implanted with the conventional technique in another group (CON); we hypothesized that computer navigation surgery would improve implant alignment, functional scores and survival of the implant compared to the conventional technique. METHODS: From 2008 to 2009, 225 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned in CON and NAV groups; 240 consecutive mobile-bearing ultra-congruent score (Amplitude, Valence, France) TKAs were performed by a single surgeon, 117 using the conventional method and 123 using the computer-navigated approach. Clinical outcome assessment was based on the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score and the Western Ontario Mac Master University Index score. Component survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.4 years (range 6-7 years). Two patients were lost to follow-up. No differences were seen between the two groups in age, sex, BMI and side of implantation. Three patients of CON group referred feelings of instability during walking, but clinical tests were all negative. NAV group showed statistical significant better KSS Score and wider ROM and fewer outliers from neutral mechanical axis, lateral distal femoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle and tibial slope in post-operative radiographic assessment. There was one case of early post-operative superficial infection (caused by Staph. Aureus) successfully treated with antibiotics. No mechanical loosening, mobile-bearing dislocation or patellofemoral complication was seen. At 7 years of follow-up, component survival in relation to the risk of aseptic loosening or other complications was 100 %. There were no implant revisions. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates superior accuracy in implant positioning and statistical significant better functional outcomes of computer-navigated TKA. Computer navigation for TKAs should be used routinely in primary implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".