No differences in mid- to long-term outcomes of computer-assisted navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate implant position in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can potentially lead to better long-term functional outcomes and implant survival. Recent studies on whether better clinical results could be obtained from computer-navigated or conventional TKA were inconclusive. In addition, recent reviews only included short-term follow-up studies without performing quantitative mid- to long-term follow-up analysis. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing mid- to long-term clinical outcomes (such as knee scoring and functional results) and radiological outcomes (such as normal alignment of the limb axis or component) between computer-navigated TKA and conventional TKA to determine which method of TKA could obtain better clinical and radiological results. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published through August 2018 that compared outcomes of computer-navigated TKA and conventional TKA. Data search, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Clinical and radiological outcomes of both techniques were evaluated using various outcome measures. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials were included. Based on Knee Society Scores, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, pain, and range of motion, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two techniques. Based on outliers from the normal axis, outliers of femoral components in the coronal plane, and outliers of tibial components in the coronal plane, radiologic outcomes showed no significant differences between the two techniques either. CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed that there were no significant differences in clinical or radiological outcomes between computer-navigated TKA and conventional TKA. It remains unclear which TKA technique yields better results in terms of mid- to long-term clinical and radiological outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".