Postoperative Stiffening after Bicruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently experienced a resurgence of popularity. It may be a good option among a younger, more active population because it restores knee kinematics better than other prosthetic designs. Results obtained in the first 100 BCR TKAs implanted with a simplified gap-balancing technique are reported, with special attention paid to knee flexion, through comparison with a cohort of 100 posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs. We conducted a retrospective comparative cohort study of 100 BCR TKAs (90 patients) and 100 PS TKAs (88 patients). Knees with a BCR TKA lost significantly more flexion PS TKA in the early postoperative period when their preoperative flexion was less than 130 degrees (loss of 40 degrees vs. loss of 24 degrees). Postoperative range of motion was similar between BCR TKA and PS TKA when preoperative knee flexion was 130 degrees or more, and when there was no preoperative flexion contracture. Postoperative stiffening seems to be more frequent and of greater magnitude after BCR TKA, compared with PS TKA, in patients suffering from preoperative flexion stiffness. Further investigation on the causes of this phenomenon is warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".