Hydroxyapatite-Coated Tibial Implants Compared with Cemented Tibial Fixation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although excellent long-term results have been reported with cemented tibial fixation, cementless fixation as a means to improve the longevity of total knee prostheses continues to be of interest to clinicians. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between cementless tibial fixation with hydroxyapatite and cemented tibial fixation in the first five years following primary total knee arthroplasty. Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized clinical trial that included eighty-one patients with noninflammatory knee arthritis who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty when they were less than seventy years of age. The subjects were randomized at the time of surgery to be treated with either cementless tibial fixation with hydroxyapatite or cemented tibial fixation. Evaluations were performed preoperatively and at six months, one year, and five years postoperatively by a physical therapist who was blinded to group allocation. Self-reported pain and function, the primary outcomes, were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). Complications and revision rates were determined through a review of hospital records and at each patient evaluation. The Knee Society radiographic score was used to evaluate plain radiographs at each assessment. Results: Seventy subjects (86%) completed the five-year assessment. Slightly more pain was reported in the hydroxyapatite group at six months as measured with both the WOMAC and the RAND-36, a difference that disappeared by one year postoperatively. No differences were seen in function, radiographic findings, or complications. No subject required revision of the tibial prosthesis during the study. Conclusions: At five years postoperatively, there is no difference between cementless tibial fixation with hydroxyapatite and cemented tibial fixation in terms of self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, postoperative complications, or radiographic scores. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".