Comparison of functional outcome of simultaneous and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty : systematic review of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safety of simultaneous bilateral TKA (simBTKA) and staged BTKA (staBTKA) have been compared in previous systematic reviews but functional outcome remains neglected aspect of the debate. We performed a systematic review of contemporary literature to compare the functional outcome of simBTKA and staBTKA. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Database to identify all articles published between 2000 and July 2020 that evaluated the outcome of patients undergoing BTKA either in simultaneous or staged manner. Ten articles were identified which met the inclusion criteria. Functional outcome was reported in terms of Knee Society score (KSS), range of motion (ROM), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University score (WOMAC) in seven, five, four and two studies respectively. KSS gained on average 66.6 points (47.5-95.3) for simBTKA and 65.1 points (44.4-97.2) for staBTKA without significant difference between two groups. There was no difference in post-operative ROM (maximum post-operative flexion being 124.4 and 125.1 for simBTKA and staBTKA groups respectively). Mean improvement in OKS ranged from 20 to 32.6 for simBTKA and 21.6 to 33.1 for staBTKA. There was moderate evidence to suggest that both simultaneous BTKA and staged BTKA produce equivalent improvement in functional scores.
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 | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".