Does oxidized zirconium make a difference? Midterm cohort survivorship of symmetric posterior condyle posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A novel symmetric posterior condylar design and option of a femoral component with an outer zirconium oxide layer were introduced to a successful asymmetric condylar total knee arthroplasty system in 2005. Given the paucity of information on this modified design, we performed a study to determine its early to midterm survivorship and performance. Methods: Patients who received the Genesis II Symmetric Posterior Condyle or Legion Primary total knee (cobalt–chromium [CoCr] or oxidized zirconium–niobium [OxZr]) (Smith & Nephew) implanted at the study centre between March 2007 and December 2013 were enrolled into a prospective database. We retrospectively reviewed the database and performed survival analysis using Kaplan–Meier techniques. Results: There were 2178 patients (1359 women [62.4%]; mean age 64.6 yr; mean body mass index 35.0) with 2815 knee replacements available for analysis. Survival rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.6%–98.7%) for failure for any reason at 2 years and 96.8% (95% CI 96.0%–97.7%) at 5 years. Age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–0.997) and female sex (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27–0.75) were protective, whereas body mass index (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99–1.05) and OxZr implant (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.57–2.18) did not influence survivorship. Oxford Knee Score values improved from a mean of 40.2 to 21.8 by 2 years (p < 0.001), with no difference between the CoCr and OxZr groups. Conclusion: The symmetric posterior condylar posterior-stabilized knee offers excellent midterm survivorship. Implant bearing surface did not have an influence on survivorship to 5 years, and, thus, use of OxZr implants may not be justified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".