Outcome in Total Knee Arthroplasty with a Medial-Lateral Balanced versus Unbalanced Gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcome in 108 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients with a medial-lateral balanced versus unbalanced gap after a mean follow-up of 34 months. METHODS: 64 women and 44 men (mean age, 69.5 years) underwent computer-assisted TKA for osteoarthritis using a cemented fixed-bearing cruciate-retaining prosthesis. The medial-lateral gap difference (measured with the prosthesis in situ and the patella reduced) was balanced (≤2 mm) in 81 patients and unbalanced (>2 mm) in 27 patients. After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire for pain, stiffness, and physical function. Scores were normalised to 0% (worst) to 100% (best). RESULTS: The balanced and unbalanced gap groups were comparable in terms of age, severity of osteoarthritis, and proportion of pre- and post-operative mechanical alignment. Compared with the balanced gap group, the unbalanced gap group had a larger medial-lateral extension gap difference (0.75±0.57 vs. 2.02±1.15 mm, p=0.001) and medial-lateral flexion gap difference (0.79±0.63 vs. 2.98±2.13 mm, p=0.001) and lower normalised total WOMAC score (84.9±18 vs. 74.8±20.8, p=0.017). CONCLUSION: WOMAC score is better in TKAs with a medial-lateral balanced (<2 mm) gap.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".