DO PATIENTS FEEL ANY DIFFERENCE AFTER BILATERAL TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY WITH DIFFERENT WEIGHTED PROSTHESES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buechel and Pappas invented a modified version of LCS RP system (Co-Cr) with light material (Titanium), axial rotation limiting bar and improved conformity. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare the minimum 3-year clinical outcomes including lightness, preference, and instability between the Co-Cr implant system and the Titanium implant system in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. We prospectively enrolled 108 patients and 20 patients were lost to follow-up. Therefore, 88 patients (176 knees; mean age, 69.9±6.0years) were included in the study. The range of motion and clinical scores such as Knee Society score (KSS), Hospital for Special Surgery score (HSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) scores were measured preoperatively and postoperatively. At each follow-up, patients also complete a Likert scale questionnaire regarding subjective pain, lightness, left-right side preference (naturalness and satisfaction) and subjective instability. There were no significant differences in all preoperative variables between two groups (p>.05). Mean follow-up period was 46.3±8.8 (36 to 72) months. The mean weight of Titanium implants was three times lighter than that of Co-Cr implants (133.9g versus 390.1g, p .05). No differences in clinical outcomes as well as subjective side-to-side differences between the Co-Cr prostheses and the Titanium prostheses were observed in the minimum 3-year follow-up. This implies that patients do not feel differently with two different weighted implants in mid-term follow-up.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".