Arthroscopic 360° denervation for knee osteoarthritis: a report of 85 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the curative effect of 360° arthroscopic denervation and routine arthroscopic debridement in treatment of knee osteoarthritis.Methods A total of 85 patients were included in the study after excluding the 5 follow-up dropout among the 90 patients with knee osteoarthritis treated between May 2006 and May 2011.Subsequently,the odd and even quality of the mantissa of admission number was used to determine the groups:Group A,42 patients underwent routine arthroscopic debridement; Group B,43 patients underwent arthroscopic debridement plus 360 degree denervation.Traumatic and degenerative arthritis occurred in 30 and 55 patients respectively.There were 34 male and 51 female patients whose mean age was 63 years (range,52-73 years).Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC),MOS item short from health survey (SF-36),and visual analogue score (VAS) were compared between the two groups before and after operation.Results WOMAC score and SF-36 score of the two groups improved after surgery.At postoperative 6 months,12 months,and 24 months,WOMAC in Group B scored 81.0,78.5,and 82.4 respectively,lower than 86.8,83.8,and 91.7 in Group A (P ＜ 0.05) ; SF-36 in group B scored 47.4,46.3,and 44.4 respectively,higher than 43.9,41.4,and 39.5 in group A (P ＜ 0.05).At postoperative 1 week,VAS of group B was 1.6 points,lower than 2.6 points in group A (P ＜ 0.05).There was no statistical difference between the two groups in postoperative swelling of joint (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions According to the area involved in knee osteoarthritis and characteristics of innervation of knee joint synovium,arthroscopic 360° denervation provides thorough debridement and removes as many innervation of knee joint synovium.Arthroscopic 360° denervation is superior to the routine arthroscopic debridement in improvement and duration of the symptoms. Key words: Knee joint ; Arthritis ; Arthroscopes
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".