Differences in one year outcome after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in elderly patients with osteoarthritis: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Patients submitted to primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty show better clinicaloutcomes, improved quality of life and increased participation in leisure activities. However, the discrepancybetween primary THA and TKA in elderly patients are unknown.Aim. To compare the Western Ontario and McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores andWOMAC change scores, the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item short-form version 2 (SF-12) mental and physicalhealth scales, satisfaction, and frequency of participation in leisure activities in elderly osteoarthritis patients(≥ 65 years) who underwent primary THA and TKA, respectively.Methods. Data from 170 THA and 169 TKA patients were collected one week preoperatively through self-reportingof WOMAC scores, and SF-12. One year postoperatively, the latter parameters and satisfaction frequencyfor participation in leisure activities were collected by self-reporting questionnaires.Results. THA group patients showed better WOMAC scores (p < 0.05), WOMAC change scores (p < 0.05),physical component summary (PCS) of SF-12 (p < 0.01), and PCS change scores (p < 0.01) compared with theTKA group. In addition, THA patients showed higher overall satisfaction (91.90 vs 83.60%), pain relief satisfaction(87.20 vs 77.40%), and functional improvement satisfaction (90.10 vs 83.08%) in comparison with TKApatients. Furthermore, higher frequency of participation in leisure activity was obtained in THA patients, exceptthe intellectual leisure activity.Conclusions. Our findings suggest that primary THA offers superior clinical outcomes, quality of life, satisfaction,and participation in leisure activity compared with primary TKA in elderly patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".