Prior unilateral total hip arthroplasty does not influence the outcome of ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the influence of a prior well-functioning unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the functional outcome of a subsequent ipsilateral primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of 92 patients older than 60 years underwent unilateral primary TKA after a prior ipsilateral THA (THA-TKA group) and 92 matched patients underwent only TKA (TKA group). Clinical assessments were performed using the Knee Society Scores (KSS) and Harris Hip Score (HSS), quality of life by the Reduced Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaires. Radiological evaluation was also performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up after TKA was 7.2 (range 5-9) years. There were no significant differences between groups in baseline data at the TKA time. The mean gains in KSS were similar in both groups. At the last follow-up, there were no significant differences in WOMAC-pain or SF12-physical scores, but the WOMAC-function (p = 0.003) and SF12-mental (p = 0.018) scores were significantly better in the isolated TKA group. At the last follow-up, there were no significant differences in the radiological knee alignment or component positions. For aseptic reasons, the TKA survival at 8 years in the TKA group was 95.8 (95% CI 87.8-100%), and 96.6% (95% CI 91.8-100%) in the THA-TKA group (ns). CONCLUSION: A well-functioning unilateral THA does not influence on the functional outcome of a subsequent ipsilateral TKA. This finding can help clinicians when counseling patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".