Effect of Posterior Tibial Slope Change on Postoperative Range of Motion and Clinical Outcomes after Posterior Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The posterior tibial slope (PTS) is usually adjusted by less than 5 degrees, without considering its individual difference, during posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The effect of these individual changes of PTS would be important because clinical results depending on postoperative PTS were reported conflictingly. We investigated the effect of the change in PTS on the postoperative range of motion (ROM) and clinical scores after PS TKA. We retrospectively reviewed 164 knees from 107 patients who underwent PS TKA with a 2-year follow-up. We analyzed the preoperative and postoperative PTS, ROM, visual analog scale pain scale, Western Ontario and McMaster University Index (WOMAC), Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score, Knee Society Score, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). The association of the absolute change in PTS with ROM and clinical scores was analyzed using correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. As a result, the mean PTS and mean ROM changed from 9.6 ± 3.4 and 120.1 ± 15.4 degrees preoperatively to 2.0 ± 1.3 and 128.4 ± 9.3 degrees postoperatively, and the mean PTS change was 7.6 ± 3.5 degrees. The PTS change had no statistically significant association with the postoperative ROM and clinical scoring systems, although it did have a weak positive correlation with WOMAC function, No 10 (difficulty in rising from sitting) (correlation coefficient = 0.342, p = 0.041), and moderate positive correlation with the FJS, No. 6 (awareness when climbing stairs) (correlation coefficient = 0.470, p = 0.001). The authors concluded that the amount of change in PTS did not affect the postoperative ROM and clinical scores, although proximal tibial resection with a constant target of PTS resulted in individually different changes in the PTS after PS TKA,
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".