Comparative study on functional outcome, complication and readmission rate in bilateral simultaneous versus staggered versus staged total knee replacement: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An important source of debate in orthopaedic practices is the choice of performing simultaneously, staggered or staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA). Many studies are available which compare bilateral simultaneous vs staged TKA in terms of functional outcome. But still there are no studies which include staggered BTKA (done in a single hospital stay) and compared their functional outcome, associated complication with a 90 days readmission rate. Methods: A retrospective review of 300 TKAs patients who underwent bilateral TKA. Patients were divided into three groups with 100 patients each in simultaneous, staggered, staged group. We use hospital electronic health records database to compare the complication and readmission rates in all three groups. Functional outcome was evaluated pre-operatively using knee society score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford knee score, Kujala score and range of motion. Results: The study consists of 234 females and 66 males, among which maximum females were in a simultaneous group while male where more in staggered group. Mean age group in our study was 62.25%. ASA score of 3 was significantly more in staged group. Patient in the staggered group had a better KSS and Kujala score with better range of motion and less readmission and complication rate. Simultaneous BTKA had slightly higher complication rate. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that there is not big significant in functional outcome when comparing simultaneous, staged and staggered bilateral TKA, but still staggered group shows better postoperative functional outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".