Comparison of Clinical, Functional, and Radiological Outcomes of Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Conventional and Patient-Specific Instrumentation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems have been developed in order to increase the accuracy of component positioning during total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, the findings of previous studies are controversial in this regard. In the current randomized clinical study, the outcomes of computer tomography (CT)-based PS (patient specific)-guided TKA were compared to the results of conventional instrumentation (CVI) TKA. The guides were designed on the basis of distal femoral and proximal tibial pin orientation of the conventional related guides. METHODS: The present study was carried out on 24 TKA candidates randomly assigned to two PSI (n=12) and CVI (n=12) groups. The patients were postoperatively followed for 2 years. Then, the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA), femoral component flexion, and orientation of components in the coronal plane were measured. In addition, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index and Knee Society Score (KSS) questionnaire were completed for all the patients. RESULTS: ); nevertheless, the difference was not significant in this regard. The rate of the outliers of other radiographic measurements and operational time were similar in both groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the WOMAC and KSS. CONCLUSION: The CT-based PS-guided TKA may result in the improved postoperative mechanical alignment of the limb and should be considered in complicated TKAs. However, future studies should investigate whether the results of PSI TKA support the considerably higher costs of this technique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".