Midterm Comparison of Tibial Fixation between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Substituting Porous Tantalum Total Knee Arthroplasty: Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Porous tantalum tibial component is durable with excellent bone ingrowth, higher knee scores, and long-term survivorship. However, to our knowledge, the effect of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) porous tantalum tibial component has not been reported. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prosthetic bone quality between CR porous tantalum tibial component and PS using three-dimensional multi-detector-row computed tomography (3D-MDCT). Porous twenty-two (22) CR total knee arthroplasties and 22 PS received 3D-MDCT at every 6 months up to 5.5 years postoperatively to assess prosthetic bone quality (bone marrow contents/tissue volumes [BMC/TV, mg/cm3]) underneath the pegs of porous tantalum modular tibial component. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society score [KSS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC), FJS-12, Patella score) were evaluated at a minimum follow-up period of 5.5 years. No statistically significant differences were found in age, gender, body mass index, KSS, and BMC/TV volumes in the proximal tibia between the two groups before total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There were also no significant differences between the CR and PS groups with regard to BMC/TV at every 6 months up to 5.5 years after TKA. At 5.5 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the KSS, WOMAC, forgotten joint score (FJS-12), and Patella score. The present study revealed that the prosthetic bone quality of the CR porous tantalum tibial component and PS were equivalent at every 6 months up to 5.5 years after TKA. This study reflects level II evidence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".