Comparison of Joint Perception Between Posterior-Stabilized and Ultracongruent Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Same Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posterior-stabilized and ultracongruent designs are 2 common examples of posterior cruciate ligament-substituting total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses. There is a lack of evidence regarding joint perception differences between ultracongruent and posterior-stabilized TKA. The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative knee stability, function, and joint perception between ultracongruent and posterior-stabilized TKA in the same patients in order to determine whether there was a difference based on design. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial included 50 patients who underwent same-day bilateral TKA utilizing Persona (Zimmer Biomet) posterior-stabilized implants in 1 knee (posterior-stabilized group) and ultracongruent implants in the other knee (ultracongruent group). At 2 years postoperatively, patients were evaluated for knee stability, function, and joint perception. Postoperative static knee anteroposterior stability and femoral rollback were compared. Knee function was evaluated with use of the Knee Society Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Joint perception was compared by evaluating noise generation, side preference, satisfaction, and the Forgotten Joint Score. RESULTS: The ultracongruent group had more knee anteroposterior laxity (4.5 mm compared with 1.8 mm in the posterior-stabilized group; p < 0.001) and less femoral rollback (4.2 mm compared with 9.0 mm in the posterior-stabilized group; p < 0.001). Knee Society Score and WOMAC scores were not significantly different between groups (all p > 0.05). Although the ultracongruent group showed less noise generation than the posterior-stabilized group (18% compared with 38%, respectively; p = 0.026), there were no differences in side preference, satisfaction, or Forgotten Joint Score (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups had similar joint perception 2 years postoperatively, with obvious differences in noise generation and more sagittal laxity with less femoral rollback in the ultracongruent group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".