MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895693203 · doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5174-1

Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty better reproduces normal gait than mechanical alignment

2018· article· en· W2895693203 on OpenAlexaff
William G. Blakeney, Julien Clément, François Desmeules, Nicola Hagemeister, Charles Rivière, Pascal‐André Vendittoli

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsSagittal planeMedicineRange of motionOrthodonticsGaitBiomechanicsGait analysisTotal knee arthroplastyProsthesisRadiographyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Kinematic alignment technique for TKA aims to restore the individual knee anatomy and ligament tension, to restore native knee kinematics. The aim of this study was to compare parameters of kinematics during gait (knee flexion-extension, adduction-abduction, internal-external tibial rotation and walking speed) of TKA patients operated by either kinematic alignment or mechanical alignment technique with a group of healthy controls. The hypothesis was that the kinematic parameters of kinematically aligned TKAs would more closely resemble that of healthy controls than mechanically aligned TKAs. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study. Eighteen kinematically aligned TKAs were matched by gender, age, operating surgeon and prosthesis to 18 mechanically aligned TKAs. Post-operative 3D knee kinematics analysis, performed with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®), was compared between mechanical alignment TKA patients, kinematic alignment TKA patients and healthy controls. Radiographic measures and clinical scores were also compared between the two TKA groups. RESULTS: The kinematic alignment group showed no significant knee kinematic differences compared to healthy knees in sagittal plane range of motion, maximum flexion, abduction-adduction curves or knee external tibial rotation. Conversely, the mechanical alignment group displayed several significant knee kinematic differences to the healthy group: less sagittal plane range of motion (49.1° vs. 54.0°, p = 0.020), decreased maximum flexion (52.3° vs. 57.5°, p = 0.002), increased adduction angle (2.0-7.5° vs. - 2.8-3.0°, p < 0.05), and increased external tibial rotation (by a mean of 2.3 ± 0.7°, p < 0.001). The post-operative KOOS score was significantly higher in the kinematic alignment group compared to the mechanical alignment group (74.2 vs. 60.7, p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The knee kinematics of patients with kinematically aligned TKAs more closely resembled that of normal healthy controls than that of patients with mechanically aligned TKAs. This may be the result of a better restoration of the individual's knee anatomy and ligament tension. A return to normal gait parameters post-TKA will lead to improved clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations194
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207