Circumferential electrocautery of the patellar in primary total knee replacement without patella replacement: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify and assess whether circumferential electrocautery is useful to improve outcomes after primary total knee replacement. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, SpringerLink, Web of Knowledge, OVID CINAHL, OVID EBM and Google Scholar, and included articles published through January 2014. This study used the methods of meta-analysis to assess whether circumferential electrocautery could improve anterior knee pain and knee function after total knee replacement, and identified the function of circumferential electrocautery in total knee replacement. Results A total of eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Among the 1 048 cases included in the analysis, 526 cases had patellar denervation, and 522 cases were in the control group. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the incidence of anterior knee pain (P=0.18) and visual analogue scale (VAS) (P=0.23) between two groups. However, patellar score (P=0.01), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score (P<0.01), and range of motion (ROM) (P<0.01) indicated that circumpatellar electrocautery improved clinical outcomes compared to non-electrocautery groups. Conclusions The results indicated that circumferential electrocautery of the patellar did not significantly improve anterior knee pain relative to non-electrocautery techniques. However, circumferential electrocautery significantly improved patients' knee function after surgery. Therefore, circumferential electrocautery might be beneficial to the outcome of primary total knee replacement surgery without patella replacement. Key words: Patella; Denervation; Arthroplasty, replacement, knee; Meta-analysis
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".