THE LONG-TERM RESULT OF FIXED-TYPE AND ROTATING-TYPE FOR BOTH TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY IN SAME PATIENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare and analyze the long term follow up clinical & radiological result after utilization of fixed-type & rotating-type implant for high flex both total knee replacement. Subject & Method This paper targeted 45 patients, 90 cases that got high flex both total knee replacement with utilization of fixed-type implant(LPS-flex ®) & rotating-type implant(P.F.C ® Sigma RP-F) for 1 patient by 1 operator(C.C.H) in our hospital from 2005.01 to 2006.11. Preoperative diagnoses were degenerative arthritis (43 patients, 86 cases), rheumatic arthritis (2 patients, 4 cases), mean age at the operation was 66.4 years old(54∼78), 3 men, 42 women, mean follow up period was 110.8months(97∼120). We compared and estimated Hospital for Special Surgery(HSS) score and Knee Society Score(KSS), Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis(WOMAC) score and mean range of motion of knee joint at pre-operation and last follow up for functional & clinical evaluation. And we compared and estimated change of femorotibial angle and radiolucency through erect AP & lateral x-ray at pre-, post-operation and last follow up using American Knee Society Roentgen Graphic Evaluation for radiological evaluation. Result On the result of clinical and functional evaluation, it showed improving outcome in both group(fixed-type implant, rotating-type implant), and there was no statistically significant difference. Mean HSS score was increased from 43.0, 37.1(pre-operation) to 93.2, 92.1(last follow-up), mean KSS score was increased from 37.1, 37.2(pre-operation) to 88.8, 87.6(last follow-up), WOMAC score was also increased from 104.8, 104.4(pre-operation) to 126.1, 128.4(last follow-up). Mean joint range of motion was increased from 104.8, 104.4(pre-operation) to 126.1, 128.4(last follow-up), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups. The change of femorotibial angle was corrected from average introversion 8.2°(pre-operation) to extroversion 4.8°(post-operation) in fixed-type implant group, and average introversion 8.3°(pre-operation) to extroversion 4.8°(post-operation) in rotating-type implant group, and there was no significant difference between 2 groups. And in all cases, there was no change of radiolucency, loosening of implant, or osteolysis at the last follow-up. Conclusion It showed good functional, clinical and radiological result on long term follow-up in both groups that got both total knee replacement with utilization of fixed-type implant and rotating-type implant for 1 patient, and there was no statistically significant difference between 2 groups. As a result, it is considered that the selection of implant will be up to the condition of patient and experience of operator and so on.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".