Long-term Results of Partial Release Versus Nonrelease of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament at Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum 15-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) partial release and PCL nonrelease in performing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (CR-TKA) for a long-term follow-up period of greater than 15 years. A total of 224 patients underwent CR-TKA in our hospital from June 1996 to April 2002 with greater than 15 years of follow-up. We divided the subjects into 2 groups based on release of the PCL. Group 1 was the PCL partial release group (88 cases), and group 2 was the PCL nonrelease group (136 cases). The mean follow-up period was 16.8 years (range, 15.5-19.5 years). We compared the clinical results by measuring the Knee Society Score (KSS), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score preoperatively and at the last follow-up. For radiologic results, the Knee Society Total Knee Arthroplasty Roentgenographic Evaluation and Scoring System was used and stress radiographs were obtained at the last follow-up to evaluate PCL function. There was no statistically meaningful difference in radiologic and clinical results between the 2 groups. Radiolucent lines were found for 13 patients radiologically (6 in group 1 and 7 in group 2). No instability as a result of PCL insufficiency required revision surgery on stress radiography at the last follow-up. If an appropriate procedure is performed according to PCL function intraoperatively, CR-TKA can produce a satisfactory result on long-term follow-up. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(4):233–238.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".