MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798210818 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.015

No difference in implant survivorship and clinical outcomes between full-cementless and full-cemented fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2798210818 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Youth Foundation of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveImplantTotal knee arthroplastyMeta-analysisFixation (population genetics)ArthroplastyDentistrySurgeryPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate over the use of cemented or cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has never stopped since cementless fixation was introduced. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the optimal mode of fixation (full-cementless vs. full-cemented) in TKA. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to July 2017 were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing full-cementless TKA and full-cemented TKA. The primary outcome was implant survivorship. Secondary outcomes included radiological outcomes (maximum total point-motion [MTPM], radiolucent line, rotation degree) and clinical outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] score, Knee Society Score [KSS] score, postoperative range of movement, blood loss and complications). Seven studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean follow-up was 7.1 years (range from 2 to 16.6 years). There was no difference in implant survivorship (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95–1.01; p = 0.25; I2 = 0%), MTPM (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.13 mm; 95% CI, −0.69–0.95; p = 0.75; I2 = 89.3%) and radiolucent line (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.57–3.23; p = 0.48; I2 = 54%) between the cementless and cemented methods. There was a mean 0.22° more rotation in the full-cementless fixation group (95% CI, 0.13–0.32; p < 0.01; I2 = 28.5%). There were no significant differences relating to clinical outcomes (WOMAC score, KSS score, postoperative range of movement, blood loss and complications) between the two fixation groups. Although more overall component rotation is found in full-cementless fixation, the implant survivorship and clinical efficacy are likely similar between full-cementless and full-cemented fixation. However, future RCTs with similar cementless prosthetic coating and longer-term follow-up are still needed to confirm our findings.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.255 · 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