Total Knee Arthroplasty after Previous Ipsilateral Hip Arthroplasty Showed Lower Clinical Outcomes and Higher Leg Length Discrepancy Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to compare perception of leg length discrepancy (LLD) and clinical results of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) in patients with or without previous ipsilateral hip arthroplasty. Between 2008 and 2015, navigation-assisted TKA was performed in 43 patients with previous hip arthroplasty after hip fracture. After 1:3 propensity score matching was performed, 108 patients of primary navigation-assisted TKA (group 1) and 36 patients with hip arthroplasty (group 2) were included. Knee Society (KS) scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) scores, and patients' satisfaction including perception of LLD were evaluated. Radiographic evaluation included mechanical axis, component position, and LLD. Logistic regression analysis was performed to find the factors that affect the clinical outcomes. No significant differences in radiologic and clinical evaluations, except for KS function score, patient's satisfaction and LLD (p< 0.001), were detected between the groups. LLD and its perception were significantly higher in group 2 (1.8 ± 3.4 mm in group 1 and 9.7 ± 4.1 mm in group 2, p = 0.000). Risk factors for the low KS function score were found as LLD (odds ratio [OR]: 1.403, p = 0.008) and previous hip arthroplasty itself (OR: 15.755, p = 0.002), but much higher OR was found in previous hip arthroplasty. Although the outcomes of TKA in patients with ipsilateral hip arthroplasty are comparable to those of primary TKA, LLD was high and patient's satisfaction and functional outcomes were low in patients with previous ipsilateral hip arthroplasty. Care should be taken when considering TKA in patients with previous hip arthroplasty. This is a Level III, case control study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".