Preservar ou substituir a patela durante a artroplastia total de joelho: Estudo comparativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo Objetivo Avaliar e comparar clínica e funcionalmente pacientes submetidos a artroplastia total primária do joelho (ATJ) com preservação ou substituição da patela. Métodos Em um estudo transversal, foram avaliados e comparados os resultados funcionais, usando escores de Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC, na sigla em inglês) e Lequesne, de 158 pacientes submetidos a artroplastia total primária o joelho (162 joelhos), sendo que em 81 joelhos a patela foi submetida a artroplastia e em 81 a superfície articular da patela foi preservada. Resultados Não foram identificadas diferenças significativas quanto ao escore de Lequesne (p = 0,585), escore global de WOMAC (p = 0,169), nem quanto às subdivisões deste quanto a rigidez (p = 0,796) e a capacidade funcional ( p= 0,190). Evidenciou-se diferença significativa apenas quanto à subdivisão que avalia a dor no escore de WOMAC, sendo menor no grupo submetido a artroplastia patelar (p = 0,036). Conclusão No presente estudo, não houve diferença na avaliação funcional em pacientes submetidos a substituição ou não da patela durante a cirurgia de artroplastia primária do joelho. Entretanto, os indivíduos nos quais a patela foi preservada relataram mais dor.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".