Comparison of Biomechanical Gait Parameters and Patient-Reported Outcome in Patients After Total Knee Arthroplasty With the Use of Fixed-Bearing Medial Pivot and Multi-radius Design Implants—Retrospective Matched-Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is considered to be highly successful in treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis. There are multiple implant designs available on the market, and it is difficult to point which one is the best. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes and gait pattern after TKA with the use of fixed-bearing medial pivot (K-Mod) vs multi-radius design (NexGen) implants and to compare them to norms for healthy patients with no osteoarthritis or arthroplasty procedure in anamnesis. METHODS: A group of 30 patients who received the medial pivot (MP) TKA and 33 patients who received the posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA between May and August of 2018 were included. All surgeries were performed in the level III academic hospital by a single surgeon. Every patient was asked to fulfill the The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Standard X-ray, biomechanical gait analysis using a motion capture system, and statistical analysis were performed at 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients from either MP cohort (93%) or PS (85%) matched-control cohort completed the whole assessment at the final follow-up. There were statistically significant differences in a few gait parameters such as shorter mean step length both in operated and healthy limb, lower mean gait velocity, and lower mean walking cadence than the norm in both MP and PS groups. As to the WOMAC score, there was statistically significant improvement in both groups comparing preoperative and postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, in the MP group, there was a significantly higher score, indicating worse outcomes, in the stiffness part of the WOMAC score than in the PS group. No significant differences were found between groups during radiological evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: There were satisfying and promising clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in both MP and PS groups with very little difference in relation to norm values. However, both implants failed in fully restoring gait patterns similar to the healthy limb of the same patient.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".