Clinical Outcome Comparison between Staged -Bilateral Versus Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Replacements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with staged and simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The present study included 100 patients with a mean age of 62±3.72 years from 2014 to 2017. Among them, 51 and 49 patients underwent simultaneous and staged bilateral TKA, respectively. The two groups were compared regarding the range of motion (ROM), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) improvement, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores. The mean follow-up duration was 24 months (range: 12-36 months). RESULTS: According to the results obtained from the SF-36 questionnaire (possessing eight different factors of quality of life), there was no significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore, the OKSs were 39.98±1.52 and 38.68±2.55 in the simultaneous and staged groups, respectively. Moreover, the WOMAC improvement scores were obtained at 84.15±2.2 and 83.26±2.6 in the simultaneous and staged groups, respectively. The final knee ROM was acceptable without a significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Substantial controversy about the complications, functional, and clinical outcomes has negatively affected the decision of the surgeons on conducting bilateral sequential TKA. This clinical assessment revealed that all determinants, including OKS, WOMAC, SF-36, ROM, postoperative bleeding, and hospitalization duration exhibited almost the same improvement in both groups. According to this study, no statistically significant difference exists in both procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".