MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2604721928

COMPARISON OF NONPOSTERIOR- AND POSTERIOR-STABILIZED MOBILE-BEARING TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED STUDY

2012· article· en· W2604721928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Young‐Hoo Kim, Jun-Shik Kim, Jong-Hwan Joo, Jang-Won Park

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProsthesisRange of motionOsteoarthritisSurgeryTotal knee arthroplastyComplicationKnee JointRadiographyArthroplastyKnee prosthesisWeight-bearing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background No study compared the clinical results of the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee with those of nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee in the same patients. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the clinical and radiographic results, range of motion, patients satisfaction, and complication rates would be better in the knees with a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee than in the knees with a nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee. Methods One hundred and fourteen patients (mean age, 67.9 years) received a nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in one knee and a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Seven patients were men, and 107 were women. At the time of each follow-up (mean, 7.3 years; range, seven to 7.6 years), the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. Results The mean postoperative Knee Society knee score (95 points versus 96 points, p=0.176), Hospital for Special Surgery knee score (92 points versus 93 points, p=0.077), and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis score (21 versus 20 points, p=0.785) were similar between the two group. At the final follow-up, the average range of motion was 27.7° (range, 70° to 150°) in the knees with a nonposterior stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis and it was 132° (range, 90 to 150 °) in the knees with a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis. Complication rates (2.6% versus 1.8%) were similar between the two groups. The estimated survival rate was 97.4% at eight years with an overall revision rate of 2.6% (three of 114 knees) in the nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group and 98.2% at eight years with an overall revision rate of 1.8% (two of 114 knees) in the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group. Conclusions After a minimum duration of follow-up of seven years, we found no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the clinical and radiographic results, or patient satisfaction, or complication rate. However, the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group had a greater range of knee motion than the nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→