What’s new in the Visionaire system® in second-generation for TKA? a comparative study of accuracy, efficiency and functional results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to analyze and compare the accuracy, efficiency and functional evolution between the first- and second-generation Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). Methods: We report our experience in TKA using PSI Visionaire System® (Smith and Nephew®) in 456 procedures. The patients were divided into first- (N=272) and second-generation PSI design (N=184). For the accuracy was analyzed the mechanical results, namely Hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment post-TKA and outliers’ frequency; for the efficiency was analyzed the length time surgery, the length of stay and satisfaction, for the functional outcomes was compared the evolution at pain, range of motion, gait perimeter and the domains of the Western ontario and mcmaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). The t-test for independent samples was applied in the continuous numeric variables and Qui square tests in the dichotomic nominal variables. Statistical significance was p value<0.05. Results: The alignment of the femur worsened significantly in the second-generation (p=0.002), but the alignment of the tibia was improved (p=0.010). However, not enough to improve significantly the HKA. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of outliers. The length of stay decreased in the second-generation (<0.001). The functioning achieved at first and third months after surgery was lower in second-generation PSI; at first month in the pain and stiffness WOMAC (p=0.030; p>0.001) and in the third in WOMAC stiffness (p<0.001). Conclusions: The second-generation PSI of Visionaire system® improved the alignment of the tibia, but not the alignment of the femur. This change did not produce any improvements in functioning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".