Preoperative Valgus Alignment Does Not Predict Inferior Outcome of Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Preoperative valgus deformity is present in an estimated 10–20% of patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR). Questions/Purposes The objective of this study was to compare the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores after TKR in a matched cohort of patients with preoperative valgus and varus deformities. Methods This is a matched cohort study of 162 patients with varus native knees and 162 patients with valgus native knees who underwent TKR and were prospectively followed in our institutional registry. Patients matched were based on age, BMI, sex, and severity of preoperative knee deformity, which was classified as mild, moderate, severe varus or valgus, or no deformity. Outcomes were evaluated using the WOMAC preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Results No significant difference was found between the matched varus and valgus cohorts in all WOMAC subdomain scores except for a marginally worse stiffness at 1 year in patients with valgus deformity (WOMAC stiffness, 75.1 varus vs. 70.1 valgus; P = 0.049). This is below the minimal clinically important difference for WOMAC scores. There was no significant difference in postoperative varus/valgus alignment between the two groups ( P = 0.092) Conclusion We found no clinically significant difference in any of the WOMAC domains in patients with preoperative varus deformity versus valgus deformity within the first year after TKR. These findings may allow surgeons to more appropriately counsel patients with osteoarthritis with valgus deformity that they can expect similar outcomes compared to patients with varus deformity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".