Can bariatric surgery delay the need for knee replacement in morbidly obese osteoarthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to find the weight reduction pattern and its outcome on knee pain and function in osteoarthritis (OA) morbidly obese patients' post-bariatric surgery with dietary and exercise changes. METHODOLOGY: Thirty morbidly obese (body mass index [BMI] >40 kg/m2) OA patients gave consent for bariatric surgery. Despite wearisome lifestyle modifications for weight loss and knee pain, satisfactory results were not retrieved. We took consent from all the patients predetermined for knee replacement in future because of pain and disability as recommended by knee replacement surgeon. The dietary and exercise protocol was standardised for all patients for bariatrics. Data for weight loss, change in BMI and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score consisting of pain, stiffness and activities of daily livings (ADLs) scores were documented at baseline, 3 months and 6 months post-bariatric surgery. RESULTS: The male-to-female ratio was 1:2. Mean age of the patients was 49.8 ± 8.6 years. Significant changes in pain (P < 0.001), stiffness (P < 0.001) and ADLs (P < 0.001) were found postoperatively at 3 and 6 months. Positive correlation of percentage change of BMI was seen with percentage change in pain (r = 0.479, P = 0.007) and ADLs (r = 0.414, P = 0.023) after 6 months of bariatric surgery. Most of the patients were inclined to delay the knee replacement further by the end of 6 months post-bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery when combined with dietary and exercise changes gave significant results in terms of weight loss, knee pain and function. It is an approach that tackles both obesity and OA. It is a major step forward in stemming the global epidemic of these two interlinked conditions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".