Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Metaphyseal Sleeves without Stem: Short-Term Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with cementless metaphyseal sleeves without stems either in the femoral or tibial side or in both. Methods In this retrospective study, 51 patients (51 knees) operated in the period 2010 to 2015 met the above-mentioned criteria and were invited to a medical examination including X-rays. Forty-six were available for the study. Mean follow-up was 37 months. Knee Society score (KSS) (objective knee score), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and range of motion (ROM) were used as outcome scores and compared with baseline values. X-rays were also examined and compared with postoperative exams to evaluate the presence of loosening, radiolucent lines, and bone ingrowth. Satisfaction of the patients was also investigated using a linear scale from 1 to 10. Results KSS improved from 39 to 77 (p < 0.01); WOMAC score improved from 76 to 41 (p < 0.01). Twenty-four (52%) patients were satisfied, 15 (32%) were partially satisfied, and 7 (16%) were unsatisfied. ROM improved from 93 to 96 degrees (nonsignificant difference). X-rays showed no loosening of the implants, radiolucent lines in 4 patients (3 of them were asymptomatic) and bone ingrowth in 43 out of 46 patients. Conclusion In this short-term retrospective study, the use of sleeves without stem was a safe and effective procedure in revision TKA. We found a significant improvement in clinical results compared with baseline values and no signs of implant loosening. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".