COVID-19 pandemic and total knee arthroplasty: the concept of a containment sheet—a frugal innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The primary purpose of the present study was to assess whether use of proposed containment sheet (so called “a frugal innovation”) minimizes the aerosol and splatter dispersion during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Material and method A total of 32 patients with knee osteoarthritis who were scheduled to undergo primary and unilateral TKA reported during the COVID-19 pandemic were enrolled into this prospective single-institution cohort study. Demographic and epidemiological data, travel and contact history were collected. Eligible cohort was randomly assigned to a study (TKA using containment sheet) group and a control group (TKA without containment sheet). Radiological and functional outcomes before operation and at the final follow-up were assessed using Western Ontario and Mc-master Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (WOMAC) and the visual analog scale (VAS). The primary outcome was the postoperative effectiveness of containment sheet and face shield, defined as the numbers of countable macroscopic aerosols and/or splatters to naked eyes. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 levels. Results Present cohort was comprised of 14 men (43.75%) and 18 women (56.25%) with an average age of 65.45 ± 4.07 years (range, 62–75 years). There were no statistically significant differences with regard to baseline parameters and perioperative demographics. Functional outcomes for knee function at the last follow-up showed significant improvement in both the groups (p < 0.05). Face shield showed significant number of aerosols/splatters in control group. Highest number/concentration of aerosols/splatters was contained within the sheet. Conclusion The proposed containment sheet can minimize the dispersion of aerosols and splatters generated during TKA and provide a safe healthcare environment in a cost-effective manner.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".