Comparisons among three approaches—two minimally invasive and one conventional—for total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study with minimum follow-up of 10 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Few studies have investigated whether the mini-medial parapatellar (MMP) and quadriceps-sparing (QS) approaches have good long-term results compared to the conventional medial parapatellar (MP) approach in terms of clinical evaluations and radiographic assessments for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to perform comparisons among the MMP, QS and MP approaches with a follow-up at 10 to 17 years. Methods This is a retrospective comparative study of 93 patients who underwent MMP TKA (32 TKAs), QS TKA (47 TKAs) or MP TKA (31 TKAs) with the same arthroplasty system. The clinical evaluations were performed according to the new American Knee Society score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analogue scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), incidence of anterior knee pain (AKP), the Feller patellofemoral score (PFS), the reoperation rate and the complication rates. Radiographic assessments included observation of the mechanical axis of the lower limb and calculations of the lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), femoral flexion angle (FFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), tibial slope angle (TSA), lateral patella displacement (LPD), and lateral patella tilt (LPT). Results There were no differences in the long-term follow-up results of the new KSS, WOMAC score, ROM, VAS, patellofemoral functions, reoperation rate or complication rates among the groups. In addition, no radiographic differences in terms of lower limb mechanical axis or femoral, tibial or patellar position were observed. Conclusion These results provide conclusive evidence that equivalent, long-term clinical results can be obtained using any one of these three approaches.
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 | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".