Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the mid-term follow-up results of revision of total knee arthroplasty and compare the different strategies for infective revisions. METHODS: All of 45 patients (47 operated knees) lived in Beijing were treated from April 1989 to October 2010 in Arthritis Clinic and Research Center, Peking University People's Hospital. There were 6 male and 39 female patients, who aged from 31 to 77 years (mean (62 ± 11) years). The function of knee, satisfaction and imaging then were compared retrospectively. American Knee Society Scores (KSS), Western Ontario & McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the medical outcomes study item short form health survey (SF-36) scales and satisfaction/pain visual analogue scales (VAS) of patients were evaluated. The patients were divided into infection group (33 patients, 34 knees) and non-infection group (12 patients, 12 knees) according to the indication of revision of total knee arthroplasty and compared by t-tests. RESULTS: The time from operation to follow-up was 1 year and 2 months to 17 years. The mid-term follow-up time was 8 years 3 months. There were significant improvements of KSS clinical and function scores (from 66.9 ± 28.0 and 44.4 ± 37.6 to 25.4 ± 24.2 and 10.0 ± 24.8, t = 7.043 and 3.797, both P = 0.001). Patients of infection group had lower KSS clinical and function scores than non-infection group before operation, and lower Society Function (t = 2.225, 3.520 and 2.885, P = 0.035, 0.002 and 0.007). About the septic group, the II-stage group had significant better post-operation KSS function scores, Society Function, physical component summary, WOMAC functional score and WOMAC score than I-stage group (t = 2.160-3.268, P = 0.004-0.042). The 1-year, 2-year, 6-year, 17-year survival rate were 83.6%, 78.7%, 62.1%, 44.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Revision total knee arthroplasty is an effective method for solving the failure of primary total knee arthroplasty. It can improve the pain and activity difficulty following the failure of primary total knee arthroplasty, and partially improve function along with quality of life. The results of non-infection group are better than infection group. There may be better results for II-stage revision total knee arthroplasty than I-stage revision. Both I-stage and II-stage revision total knee arthroplasty are effective.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".