Comparison of the clinical results of mobilebearing and fixed-bearing prostheses used for total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the changes in pain, function, stiffness and complications over time in patients with osteoarthritis who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with fixed or mobile-bearing. Methods: This study is a prospective cohort type study performed with gonarthrosis patients that underwent TKA. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) were used for clinical evaluation (pain, function and stiffness). The post-treatment measurements of patients were performed at the one-year follow-up. Results: The study group consisted of 63 patients with a mean age of 63.57 ± 8.13 years. WOMAC and AKSS scores of the patients improved significantly in both groups over time. WOMAC pain score was found to be lower in the fixed-bearing group in the postoperative first year. The WOMAC function score was lower in the mobile-bearing group at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The AKSS pain score was significantly lower in the mobile-bearing group in the preoperative period and in the fixed-bearing group at postoperative third month. The AKSS function score was significantly lower in the fixed-bearing group in the third and sixth postoperative months. In the postoperative period, no significant difference was found between groups in terms of radiolucent area size, infection and complication development. Conclusions: Significant clinical improvements were observed in both types of prostheses during the follow-up of patients. While there were differences in clinical outcomes between the groups during the follow-up period, the two groups were similar in terms of complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".