Postoperative Functional and Radiological Outcome Comparison of Computer-assisted and Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty at 6 Months Follow-up: A Cross Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Computer-assisted navigation TKA has just been adapted in Indonesia for the last decade. The method is aiming to achieve more precise mechanical alignment in TKA. However, controversies still exist especially in terms of functional outcome and radiological outcome.Method. Fifty elderly patients aged more than 50 years old with severe knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren Lawrence stage III or IV) who scheduled for TKA surgery in the first half of 2019 were consecutively sampled. All patients were measured for objective functional status with Western Ontario Mac Master University Index (WOMAC) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Weight-bearing, long-leg follow-up radiographs of both lower limbs were taken, and coronal tibiofemoral angle (CTFA), coronal femoral component angle (CFCA) and coronal tibial component angle (CTCA) were measured.Results. Group of computer-assisted navigation TKA surgery was found to have significantly lower WOMAC score (p0.05) and higher OKS score (p0.05). Although not statistically significant, greater angle of deviation is observed in the conventional TKA surgery group. Proportions with deviation of less than 3º were found more in the group using computer navigation.Discussion. The results of this study indicate the advantage of using a computer assisted system in TKA procedure, in terms of better functional outcome. However, our study only measures mechanical alignment from coronal plane and short term follow up time. Other parameter measurement, such as mechanical alignment on sagittal plane, rotational alignment, and soft tissue balance are also important to determine the success rate of TKA procedure.Conclusion. Patients who had TKA surgery under computer-assisted navigation would benefit a better functional outcome if compared with conventional TKA surgery, as measured with WOMAC and OKS. However, there is no significant difference in terms of radiographic value of coronal-plane mechanical deviation on both methods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".