No difference in clinical outcome between patient-matched positioning guides and conventional instrumented total knee arthroplasty two years post-operatively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We wished to compare the clinical outcome, as assessed by questionnaires and the rate of complications, in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) undertaken with patient-matched positioning guides (PMPGs) or conventional instruments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 180 patients (74 men, 106 women; mean age 67 years) were included in a multicentre, adequately powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The mean follow-up was 44 months (24 to 57). RESULTS: There were no significant or clinically relevant differences between the two groups for all outcome measures (Knee Society Score, p = 0.807; Oxford Knee Score, p = 0.304; Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index, p = 0.753; visual analogue scale for pain, p = 0.227; EuroQol-5D-3L index score, p = 0.610; EuroQol-5D-3L VAS health, p = 0.968.) There was no difference in the rate of complications (p = 0.291). CONCLUSION: PMPGs are already in relatively common use and their short-term clinical results are equal to conventional instrumented TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:939-44.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".