Clinical Results after Design Modification of Lospa Total Knee Arthroplasty System: Comparison between Posterior-Stabilized (PS) and PS Plus Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lospa posterior-stabilized (PS) Plus type is a modified version of Lospa PS, in which the polyethylene insert shape is modified to reinforce stability and prevent patella-post impingement compared to Lospa PS. However, studies comparing the clinical and radiographic results of the two designs have not been reported yet. This study aimed to compare the clinical results of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the existing PS type and the modified Lospa PS Plus type. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 558 knees of 342 patients who underwent TKA using the Lospa PS or PS Plus types and were followed up for at least 2 years. Cases were divided into two groups according to the implant used: 212 cases in the PS group and 346 cases in the PS Plus group. For clinical outcome assessment, knee range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Knee Society Score (KSS) were recorded before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up. Radiographic outcomes were evaluated according to the American Knee Society method. The incidence of postoperative complications and survival rates were compared between the two groups. Results: = 0.167). Conclusions: The Lospa PS Plus model is a modified design that improves the post structure from the previous PS type. Compared to the PS type, the PS Plus type showed similar statistical results at 2-year follow-up and good clinical results. The short-term average survival rate was over 98%, showing promising results.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".