Long‐term outcomes were similar between hybrid and cemented TKAs performed on paired knees at a minimum 15 years of follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare long-term clinical and radiographic results and survival rates between hybrid and cemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) performed on paired knees. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with hybrid and cemented TKAs performed on paired knees with NexGen® cruciate-retaining prostheses were retrospectively reviewed after a minimum 15 years of follow-up. Mean follow-up period was 17.5 years. Preoperative alignment deformity and range of motion (ROM) were not different between groups. The Knee Society score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and ROM were evaluated. Radiographically, change in joint space width, component loosening, and osteolysis were evaluated. Implant survival rate was analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in clinical results between hybrid and cemented TKAs performed on paired knees of 72 patients at the last follow-up. No significant difference was observed in the change in joint space width between the two groups at the last follow-up (medial = 0.3 mm vs. 0.4 mm; lateral = 0.1 mm vs. 0.2 mm). One hybrid TKA showed tibial component loosening, for which revision was performed. There was femoral osteolysis in one hybrid and one cemented TKA, and tibial osteolysis in eight hybrid TKAs and seven cemented TKAs (n.s., respectively). The 20-year survival rate was 97.7% for hybrid TKAs and 100% for cemented TKAs (n.s.). CONCLUSION: The long-term outcomes were similar between hybrid and cemented TKAs performed on paired knees at a minimum 15 years of follow-up. The method of femoral component fixation did not have a significant effect on long-term TKA success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".