Ten-Year Comparison of Oxidized Zirconium and Cobalt-Chromium Femoral Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine if oxidized zirconium femoral components had better outcomes than cobalt-chromium in vivo at medium and long term and if the use of oxidized zirconium components had clinical adverse effects. Methods: Forty consecutive patients (eighty knees) underwent simultaneous bilateral cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis from January 2002 to December 2003. For each patient, the knees were randomized to receive the oxidized zirconium femoral component, with the contralateral knee receiving the cobalt-chromium component. Outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Society score, and British Orthopaedic Association patient satisfaction scale. Radiographic outcomes include the Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system and measurement of radiographic wear. Patients and assessors were blinded to the treatment groups and results. Results: There were no significant differences in clinical, subjective, and radiographic outcomes between the two implants at ten years postoperatively. Ten years following surgery, 36% of the patients preferred the cobalt-chromium knee compared with 11% who preferred the oxidized zirconium knee (p = 0.02) and 53% had no preference. Conclusions: Ten-year outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with oxidized zirconium and cobalt-chromium femoral components showed no significant differences in clinical, subjective, and radiographic outcomes. Patients had no preference or preferred the cobalt chromium prosthesis to the oxidized zirconium prosthesis. There were no adverse effects associated with the use of oxidized zirconium femoral implants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".