MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192288073 · doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06683-9

The medial condylar wall is a reliable landmark to kinematically align the femoral component in medial UKA: an in‐silico study

2021· article· en· W3192288073 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Preston, S. Harris, Loïc Villet, Collin Mattathil, Justin Cobb, Charles Rivière

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsArthritis Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondyleValgusAnatomyCoronal planeMedial axisLandmarkOrthodonticsMedicineKinematicsGeometryPhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Kinematic alignment (KA) aligns the femoral implant perpendicular to the cylindrical axis in the frontal and axial plane. Identification of the kinematic axes when using the mini‐invasive sub‐quadricipital approach is challenging in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study aims to assess if the orientation of condylar walls may be suitable for use as an anatomical landmark to kinematically align the femoral component in medial UKA. It was hypothesised that the medial wall of the medial condyle would prove to be a reliable anatomical landmark to set both the frontal and axial alignment of the femoral component in medial UKA. Methods 73 patients undergoing medial UKA had pre‐operative CT imaging to generate 3D models. Those with osteophytes that impaired visualisation of the condylar walls were excluded. 28 patients were included in the study. The ideal KA was determined using the cylindrical axis in the frontal and axial plane. Simulations using the medial wall of the medial condyle (MWMC) and the lateral wall of the medial condyle (LWMC) were performed to set the frontal alignment. To set the axial alignment, the MWMC, LWMC, medial wall of the lateral condyle (MWLC), and medial diagonal line (MDL) anatomical landmarks were investigated. Differences between the ideal measured KA values and values obtained using landmarks were investigated. Results Use of the MWMC let to similar frontal alignment compared to the ideal KA (2.9° valgus vs 3.4° valgus, p = 0.371) with 46.4% (13/28) of measurements being 1.0° different from the ideal KA and only 1 simulation with greater than 4.0° difference. Use of the MWMC led to very similar axial alignments compared to the ideal KA (0.5° internal vs 0.0°, p = 0.960) with 75.0% (21/28) of measurements being 1.0o different from the ideal KA, and a maximum difference of 3.0°. Use of the MWLC and MDL was associated with significant statistical differences when compared to the ideal KA (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions The native orientation of the medial condylar wall seems to be a reliable anatomical landmark for aligning the femoral component in medial KA UKA in both the axial plane and frontal planes. Other assessed landmarks were shown to not be reliable. Clinical and radiographic assessments of the reliability of using the MWMC to set the frontal and axial orientation of the femoral component when performing a medial KA UKA are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207