Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Constrained Condylar Knee Prosthesis Combined with a Posterior Stabilized Articular Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraoperative assessment of valgus-varus stability is crucial for choosing articular surfaces with different levels of constraint. Legacy constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses are readily available to assemble and use with a CCK articular surface or a posterior stabilized (PS) articular surface in revision knee arthroplasty surgeries. We wanted to validate outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using legacy CCK prostheses combined with a PS articular surface. Thirty-seven patients were enrolled and followed up for more than 2 years. Range of motion (ROM), the Knee Society score (KSS), the Knee Society functional score (KSS-F), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to evaluate outcomes. Follow-up was a mean of 86.5 months (range: 28-152 months). The mean age of the participants was 69.8 years (range: 31-86 years). The mean ROM was 110.5 degrees, the KSS was 86.2 points, the KSS-F was 68.3 points, and the WOMAC score was 22.6 points. Seven participants had implant failures: five because of delayed infections and two because of posterior dislocations. In conclusion, revision TKA using a CCK prosthesis combined with a PS articular surface might provide satisfactory mid-term outcomes. Delayed infection was the most common cause of implant failure. Dislocation might occur in middle-old or older patients despite careful intraoperative examination of valgus-varus stability, extension-flexion gap balancing, and signs of recurvatum.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".