Poor Outcome of Above-Knee Amputation after Septic Failure of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persistent periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty is one of the most dreaded complications of orthopaedic surgery. Treatment strategies include arthrodesis of the knee joint, stable fistula, long-lasting antibiotic therapy, or above-knee amputation. The advantage of amputation in comparison to other treatment options is the possible cure of infection, because the source of infection is removed and no foreign material left in situ. The aim of the study is to examine whether a septic amputation of the femur in case of persistent periprosthetic infection at the knee joint leads to the healing of the patient. Moreover, the physical and mental state should be evaluated. All patients with above-knee amputation because of periprosthetic joint infection after primary total knee arthroplasty between 2016 and 2018 were included in this retrospective study. A questionnaire with the clinical scores visual analog scale, modified Lysholm, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and 36-Item Short Form Survey has been designed. In addition, all characteristics and perioperative data were documented. Eleven patients were included in the study. One patient died after above-knee amputation; all other patients live with a marked impairment of quality of life but with absence of the infection of the leg. Two out of ten are able to walk regularly with an exoprosthesis with forearm crutches, 50% are in a wheelchair, while 30% are bedridden. Patients with above-knee amputation after persistent periprosthetic infections were free of infection and without signs of inflammation. However, this is associated with worse mobility and high mortality rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".