Total knee arthroplasty using ultra-congruent inserts can provide similar stability and function compared with cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recently, ultra-congruent (UC) inserts have shown successful outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that patients in the UC group would not show significantly different in vivo stability or functional outcomes from those in the cruciate-retaining (CR) group. METHODS: The prospective study enrolled patients who had been treated with either CR or UC TKAs (38 cases in each group), after a minimum 3-year follow-up. The same surgical technique was used with the same femoral components in both groups except for the polyethylene inserts (CR or UC). The clinical outcome measures were knee range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Knee Society (KS) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) subscale score. The mediolateral laxity at full extension and anteroposterior laxity at 90° flexion were measured in stress radiographs and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Both the CR and UC groups showed significant improvements in post-operative ROM, HSS, KS, and WOMAC scores without inter-group differences between two groups. Moreover, there were no differences in mediolateral or anteroposterior laxity between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: TKA with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) resection using the UC design showed comparable functional outcomes with those of CR TKA and provided similar in vivo stability. Therefore, UC inserts can be a good option in TKA without bony box cut when the PCL is damaged during an operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".