MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214859188 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.21.00597

The Effect of Patient Age and Surgical Appropriateness and Their Influence on Surgeon Recommendations for Primary TKA

2022· article· en· W4214859188 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gillian Hawker, Éric Bohm, Michael Dunbar, C Allyson Jones, Tom Noseworthy, Deborah A. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNova Scotia Health AuthorityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreConcordia Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyBody mass indexOsteoarthritisArthroplastyTotal knee arthroplastyCohortGeneralized estimating equationOrthopedic surgeryProspective cohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rising total knee arthroplasty (TKA) rates in younger patients raises concern about appropriateness. We asked: are younger individuals who seek consultation for TKA less likely to be appropriate for and, controlling for appropriateness, more likely to be recommended for surgery? METHODS: This cross-sectional study was nested within a prospective cohort study of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients referred for TKA from 2014 to 2016 to centralized arthroplasty centers in Alberta, Canada. Pre-consultation, questionnaires assessed patients' TKA appropriateness (need, based on knee symptoms and prior treatment; readiness/willingness to undergo TKA; health status; and expectations) and contextual factors (for example, employment). Post-consultation, surgeons confirmed study eligibility and reported their TKA recommendation. Using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering by surgeon, we assessed relationships between patient age (<50, 50 to 59, ≥60 years) and TKA appropriateness and receipt of a surgeon TKA recommendation. RESULTS: Of 2,037 participants, 3.3% and 22.7% were <50 and 50 to 59 years of age, respectively, 58.7% were female, and 35.5% were employed. Compared with older participants, younger participants reported significantly worse knee symptoms, higher use of OA therapies, higher TKA readiness, and similar willingness, but had higher body mass index and were more likely to smoke and to consider the ability to participate in vigorous activities, for example, sports, as very important TKA outcomes. TKA was offered to 1,500 individuals (73.6% overall; 52.2%, 71.0%, and 75.4% of those <50, 50 to 59, and ≥60 years, respectively). In multivariate analyses, the odds of receiving a TKA recommendation were higher with greater TKA need and willingness, in nonsmokers, and in those who indicated that improved ability to go upstairs and to straighten the leg were very important TKA outcomes. Controlling for TKA appropriateness, patient age was not associated with surgeons' TKA recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Younger individuals with knee OA referred for TKA had similar or greater TKA need, readiness, and willingness than older individuals. Incorporation of TKA appropriateness criteria into TKA decision-making may facilitate consideration of TKA benefits and risks in a growing population of young, obese individuals with knee OA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Younger people seeking TKA for knee OA had significant OA pain and disability despite recommended OA therapies, suggesting appropriateness for surgical consideration. However, they were significantly more likely to have morbid obesity, to smoke, and to consider return to vigorous activities, like sport, as important TKA outcomes. Whether the short- and longer-term risks of TKA are outweighed by the benefits is unclear and warrants additional research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207