Comparison of short-time functional outcomes after TKA between Multigen Plus CR and Physica KR prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to compare functional results within 36 months following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using a conventional prosthesis Multigen Plus CR and a new Physica KR implant. Our hypothesis was that the use of the Kinematics-Retaining design of an TKA implant leads to a significantly greater improvement in the active range of motion and better functional results (KSS 1, KSS 2 and WOMAC score) than the conventional CR implant at short-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data of 234 patients who underwent primary TKA at our hospital from April 2010 to August 2015 with the CR type of implant and from July 2014 to August 2015 with the KR implant due to advanced knee arthrosis of IIIrd and IVth grade of Kellgren-Lawrence classification, with no major ligamentous instability. Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire, Knee Society Scores 1 (KSS 1) and 2 (KSS 2) and flexion (AROM) were recorded preoperatively and at 6, 12 and 36 months after surgery. RESULTS: Our study showed a statistically significant difference in functional results at three years with better KSS 1 score, a tendency to higher values in the KSS 2 score, as well as a statistically significant overall improvement in AROM in favour of the new KR design over the conventional CR implant with a post-hoc power analysis of 83.8%. We found that there was no statistically significant difference between groups when comparing WOMAC score and complications at short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided more favourable clinical results for using Kinematics-Retaining implant in primary TKA. Further studies should focus on radiological and functional outcomes from mid- to long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".