A 9-Year Outcome Study Comparing Cancellous Titanium-Coated Cementless to Cemented Tibial Components of a Single Knee Arthroplasty Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cemented Advance Medial-Pivot total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was designed to reflect contemporary knee kinematics data and has shown satisfactory long-term outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data from 2 groups of patients. Group A consisted of 54 patients (54 TKAs), 18 men and 36 women, and mean age at surgery was 63.2 ± 5.2 years; group B consisted of 54 patients (54 TKAs), 17 men and 37 women, and mean age at surgery was 63.8 ± 5.1 years. Patients of both groups were matched for age, gender, side, body mass index, and length of follow-up. The cementless components of this design were implanted in group A and the cemented in group B. Implant failure, complication rates, clinical (both subjective and objective) and radiological outcomes were assessed in all patients of both groups. RESULTS: All patients of both groups were available for final follow-up evaluation at a mean of 8.6 ± 0.4 years. Survival analysis at 9 years showed a cumulative success rate of 100% in both groups with all end points. In neither group were implant-related, surgeon-related, or patient-related failures observed. When both groups were compared, in all time intervals, no differences were recorded on Knee Society system, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-12, and Oxford Knee Scores. On radiological examination, for both groups, all parameters evaluated were satisfactory. CONCLUSION: This study presents satisfactory midterm clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of both versions of this design. Moreover, no implant-related failures were observed with the use of cancellous titanium-coated tibial implants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".