MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737059123 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1604145

Postoperative Stiffening after Bicruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

2017· article· en· W2737059123 on OpenAlexaff
Fidaa Al-Shakfa, James R. Moore, Lydia Mychaltchouk, Khaled Iguer, Frédéric Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Knee Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyRange of motionRetrospective cohort studySurgeryCohortArthroplastyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Knee SurgerySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207