Mid‐term results show no significant difference in postoperative clinical outcome, pain and range of motion between a well‐established total knee arthroplasty design and its successor: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcome scores following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with two different systems. The hypothesis was that there is a difference between patients receiving the newer design than those receiving the predecessor. METHODS: Two hundred patients who underwent TKA were randomized into two groups: patients received either Attune TKA or PFC Sigma (both DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN). Clinically, the Knee Society Knee and Function Scores (KS and FS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Range of Motion (ROM) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were evaluated and compared between the groups 2 years after surgery. 158 patients (80 in the Attune group and 78 in the PFC Sigma group) were available for follow-up. RESULTS: Through bivariate analysis using parametric and non-parametric statistical tests, no significant differences in postoperative KS, FS, WOMAC, ROM or VAS between the two groups were detected. Both groups significantly improved regarding all evaluated endpoints 2 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study population, no difference in clinical outcome between the two systems was found. The expected benefits of design modifications could not be observed in clinical outcome scores 2 years postoperatively. Both designs are effective options for improving pain and function in end-stage osteoarthritis. 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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".