[TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT WITH PATIENT SPECIFIC INSTRUMENT IN PATIENTS WITH SECONDARY OSTEOARTHRITIS].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Total knee arthroplasty is the most prevalent operation with a high success rate in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis. However, patients with complex secondary osteoarthritis remained marginalized to the surgical response or otherwise exposed to high risk conventional surgery. Early decades of life, surgical history, technical complexity, high surgical morbidity, variability of pathology and anatomy and poor clinical outcome are a few of the reasons. The assimilation of modern technology shifted the concept and practice in the field of arthroplasty, opening a window of treatment opportunities for patients with secondary osteoarthritis with patient specific implants (PSI). AIMS: Evaluate safety, efficacy and applicability limitations of PSI as an alternative to conventional total knee arthroplasty in complex clinical settings. Furthermore, the study aimed to conduct assessments of clinical outcome and technical aspects. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort clinical study, based on Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire pre and post-operative. The study was conducted through a structured analysis of parameters characterizing patients who are candidates for treatment with PSI, highlighting technical points. RESULTS: A curve of 31point improvement (p=0.021) in the WOMAC score at minimum 12 month follow up was observed. There was demonstration of the specific elements required for balancing lower limb axis deformity and previous metal retaining situations. CONCLUSIONS: PSI technology offers a reduction of surgical complexity, morbidity and complication potential with significant improvement in clinical outcome, in patients with secondary osteoarthritis associated with extra articular deformities, presence of hardware, and in musculoskeletal rare diseases. DISCUSSION: A first time presentation of focused, isolated and specified characteristics of a patient population with secondary osteoarthritis where PSI establishes a step forward in the treatment and outcome of patients with complex clinical presentation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".