Clinical Results of Fixed-Bearing and Rotating-Platform Total Knee Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inconsistent results have been reported for posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing and rotating-platform total knee prostheses. The authors sought to determine whether the design changes of these prostheses had led to their achieving their intended objectives at minimum 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, the authors sought to delineate the specific features of these knee prostheses to which good outcomes are attributed. One hundred patients (mean age, 66.2 years) were included in this study. Mean follow-up was 10.4 years (range, 10-11 years). The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with the Knee Society clinical rating system. In addition, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire was used and the University of California at Los Angeles activity scores were determined preoperatively and at each follow-up visit. The mean Knee Society knee score was 90 points (range, 70-100 points) in the fixed-bearing group and 92 points (range, 75-100 points) in the rotating-platform group at final follow-up. Mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score was 16 points (range, 5-46 points) in the fixed-bearing group and 16 points (range, 6-49 points) in the rotating-platform group. Mean University of California at Los Angeles activity score was 6.5 points (range, 4-10 points) at final follow-up in both groups. No knee had aseptic loosening of the components, and neither group had osteolysis. The predicted implant survival at 10.4 years was 99% as the endpoint of any reoperation in both groups. The findings of this study suggest that cemented posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing and rotating-platform prostheses have favorable clinical and radiographic results. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):88-94.].
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".