Comparison of clinical outcomes between patellar resurfacing and patellar non-resurfacing in cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It is not established whether patellar resurfacing is better than patellar non-resurfacing during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study was to compare the clinical outcomes between groups with patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing during cruciate retaining (CR) TKA. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, subjects undergoing primary CR TKA for osteoarthritis between 2012 and 2019 were included. Of 500 subjects, 250 had patellar resurfacing (group 1) and 250 had patellar non-resurfacing (group 2) CR TKA. Knee society knee score (KSKS), knee society function score (KSFS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scale, Kujala score, anterior knee pain, patellar compression test and range of motion (ROM) of the replaced knee were assessed and compared between the two groups. Results There were no significant differences in KSKS, KSFS, WOMAC scale, Kujala score, prevalence of anterior knee pain and ROM of the replaced knee between the two groups at the last follow-up ( p > .05). Group 2 had more subjects with positive patellar compression test than group 1 at the last follow-up ( p = .010). Conclusions Clinical and functional outcomes of the replaced knee were not different between patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing groups. Anterior knee pain was significantly reduced after total knee arthroplasty regardless of patellar resurfacing. Level of evidence Retrospective cohort study, Level III.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".