Long-term Functional Difference between the First and Second Knees in Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term functional results of the first and second knees in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Gulhane Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey from January 2003 to December 2010. METHODOLOGY: A total of 47 patients with at least 10 years of follow-up after simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty were included in the study. The range of motion, forgotten joint score (FJS), Oxford knee score (OKS), and Western Ontario McMaster university osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) were compared between the first and the second knees. The Dependent t-test and the Wilcoxon Sign test were used to determine the significance. Whether there was a statistically significant correlation, so Spearman's correlation test and Bonferroni correction were used. RESULTS: WOMAC total scores both knees were 13 (p=0.755). The average OKS of the first operated knees was 40.53 ± 4.44, while it was 40.28 ± 4.59 in the second knees (p=0.239). The FJS of the first and second operated knees were 69.36 ± 21.97 and 69.02 ± 21.89, respectively (p=0.321). As the age increased, the ROM was decreased. As the patient age increased, WOMAC pain scores were found to decrease. CONCLUSION: The functional scores of the first and the second operated knees in SBTKA were similar in the long term. Although no correlation was found between age and the functional scores, these results complied with the previous information about the effect of age on TKA results. Key Words: Simultaneous total knee arthroplasty, Bilateral, Clinical outcome, Osteoarthritis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".