Differences in outcome after cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilized (PS) implants are commonly used for primary total knee arthroplasty. There is evidence to support improved range of motion in PS knee replacements, but there is no evidence showing functional superiority. The aim of this study was to compare functional outcomes between CR and PS knee replacements. PATIENT AND METHODS: Prospectively collected regional joint registry data were used to compare preoperative and postoperative one, 5- and 10-year Oxford and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores in 1287 primary total knee replacements. Differences in functional scores between CR and PS knees were calculated. RESULTS: The PS group had better functional scores than the CR group at baseline (mean Oxford score 15.59 vs. 14.52 ( p = 0.026) and mean WOMAC score 59.51 vs. 62.35 ( p = 0.012)), at 1 year postoperatively (mean Oxford score 37.94 vs. 36.63 ( p = 0.015) and mean WOMAC score 16.20 vs. 19.73 ( p = 0.001)) with a similar trend at 5 years postoperatively (mean Oxford score 39.66 vs. 38.50 ( p = 0.054) and mean WOMAC score 16.89 vs. 18.83 ( p = 0.131)). There was no difference in the overall functional improvement between the PS and CR groups at 1, 5, or 10 years. WOMAC subcomponent scores showed greater improvement in stiffness; 3.76 versus 3.36 ( p = 0.012) in PS knees at 1 year postoperatively. No significant differences were observed at 5 or 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: PS knee replacements showed greater improvement in stiffness at 1 year postoperatively. There was no difference observed at 5 or 10 years postoperatively. PS knees had better functional outcomes at 1 year with a similar trend at 5 years postoperatively. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".