Bilateral total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most successful orthopedic surgeries performed in recent decades. However, controversies still exist between conducting simultaneous or staged bilateral TKA. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical outcome associated with simultaneous bilateral and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA). METHODS: A search was applied to CNKI, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane central database (January 2000-July 2018). All studies that compared simultaneous bilateral TKA (simBTKA) with staged bilateral TKA (staBTKA) without language restriction were reviewed, and qualities of included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis completed. RESULTS: The 18 studies were identified to be eligible. The 18 comparative studies published from 2001 to 2018, covered 73617 participants in the simBTKA group and 61838 in the staBTKA group, respectively. Results of meta-analyses indicated that simBTKA showed a lower risk of deep infection and respiratory complications, but increased mortality, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) compared with staBTKA. There were no significant differences in revision, superficial infection, arthrofibrosis, cardiac complications, neurological complications and urinary complications between procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Since there are risks and benefits to both procedures, these potential complications must be interpreted in light of each individual patient's needs and concerns. Further research must be conducted, in the form of a randomized clinical trial, to evaluate the outcomes mentioned in this review.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".