A Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Stiffer When the Intraoperative Tibial Force Is Greater than the Native Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with an intraoperative tibial force greater than the tibial force of the native knee has signs of stiffness as measured by loss of extension and flexion, and anterior translation of the tibia. Intraoperative forces in the medial and lateral tibial compartments were measured during passive motion in 71 patients treated with calipered kinematically aligned TKA. Maximum extension, flexion, and the anterior-posterior position of the tibia with respect to the distal femur at 90 degrees of flexion were measured. Measurements were repeated after exchanging to a 2 mm thicker insert. The sum of the average of the medial and lateral compartment forces at 0, 45, and 90 degrees of flexion represented the tibial force through a 90-degree motion arc. For the implanted insert, the tibial force averaged 28 ± 17 lb, which is comparable to the 20 ± 7 lb reported for the native knee. At 6 months, patients reported an average 40 point Oxford Knee and 15 point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score. For the 2 mm thicker insert, the tibial force averaged 50 ± 28 lb. A 30 lb tibial force greater than native generated a 3-degree loss of extension, a 3-degree loss of flexion, and 3-mm anterior translation of the tibia. Because a TKA with a tibial force greater than native has signs of stiffness, a strategy for lowering this risk is to match the tibial force of the native knee when balancing a TKA as this restored high function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".