MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200482882 · doi:10.1111/os.13155

Comparison of Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty Involving Postoperative Neutral or Residual Mild Varus Alignment: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2021· review· en· W4200482882 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversitySichuan UniversityDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyResidualSurgeryArthroplastyOrthodonticsInternal medicineMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparing mainly clinical and functional outcomes as well as prosthesis survival with neutral and residual mild varus alignment, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from 1 January 1974 to 18 December 2020 to identify studies comparing clinical and functional outcomes as well as prosthesis survival in the presence of different alignments after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for varus knees. The included studies were assessed by two researchers according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Postoperative neutral alignment (0° ± 3°) was compared to residual mild varus (3°–6°) and residual severe varus (>6°). Meta‐analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. The odds ratios ( OR ) and mean differences (MD) were used to compare dichotomous and continuous variables. The fixed‐effect model and random‐effect model were used to meta‐analyze the data. Nine studies were included in the meta‐analysis with 1410 cases of postoperative neutral alignment, 564 of residual mild varus alignment and 175 of residual severe varus alignment following TKA, all of which were published after 2013. Three studies scored 7 points on the NOS, while the remaining studies scored 8 points, suggesting high quality. The pooled mean differences (MDs) of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score were 1.07 [95% confidence interval ( CI ) −1.06 to 3.20; P = 0.32; I 2 = 79%]. The meta‐analysis showed that neutral alignment and mild varus alignment were associated with similar the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Knee Score (KS‐KS), and Knee Society Function Score (KS‐FS), while neutral alignment was associated with lower Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) [mean difference −6.0, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) −9.37 to −2.64, P = 0.0005]. Neutral alignment was associated with higher KS‐KS than severe alignment (M 2.98, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.55, P = 0.0002; I 2 = 0%) as well as higher KS‐FS (M 8.20, 95% CI 4.58 to 11.82, P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%). Neutral alignment was associated with similar rate of survival as mild varus alignment (95% CI 0.36 to 9.10; P = 0.48; I 2 = 65%) or severe varus alignment (95% CI 0.94 to 37.90; P = 0.06; I 2 = 61%). There was no statistical difference in others. Residual mild varus alignment after TKA may lead to similar or superior outcomes than neutral alignment in patients with preoperative varus knees, yet the available evidence appears to be insufficient to replace the current gold standard of neutral alignment. Severe varus alignment should be avoided.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it