No difference of survival between cruciate retaining and substitution designs in high flexion total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the long-term implant survival and outcomes in patients with high-flexion cruciate-retaining (CR) or high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) knee implants. A total of 253 knees (CR group: 159 vs. PS group: 94) were available for examination over a mean follow-up of 10 years. Clinical outcomes were assessed including the Hospital for Special Surgery score, Knee Society score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score at the final follow-up. Radiologic measurements were also assessed including the hip-knee-ankle angle and radiolucent lines according to the KSS system at the final follow-up. The survival rate was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. At the final follow-up, the mean total HSS scores were similar between the two groups (p = 0.970). The mean hip-knee-ankle angle at the final follow-up was similar between groups (p = 0.601). The 10- and 15-year survival rates were 95.4% and 93.3% in the CR group and 92.7% and 90.9% in the PS group, respectively, with no significant difference. Similar clinical and radiographic outcomes could be achieved with both the high-flexion CR and high-flexion PS total knee designs without a difference in survival rate after a 10-year follow-up.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".