Evaluation of double-high insert mid-term outcomes in cruciate-retaining medial-pivotal total knee arthroplasty – a propensity score-matched analysis with averaged 8-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes between medial-pivotal (MP) insert and double-high (DH) insert used under the cruciate-retaining condition in ADVANCE® total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The follow-up was conducted for 158 consecutive patients who underwent unilateral ADVANCE® TKA from January 2011 to April 2014. Eighty-four MP inserts and 74 DH inserts were used under cruciate-retaining conditions. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed between MP inserts and DH inserts to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes. RESULTS: After a 1:1 PSM, 120 patients (60 pairs) were matched between the MP and DH inserts groups. The baseline demographic parameters and clinical scores were comparable between the two groups. The postoperative clinical outcomes at an averaged 8-year follow-up of both groups were significantly improved. The range of motion (ROM) of the DH group was better than that of the MP group, and equivalent Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) between the two groups was found. However, the Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) of the MP group were found to be significantly superior to those of the DH group. Comparable complication and revision rates were observed between the two groups. The radiographic results were also equally good between MP and DH groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the DH inserts are fairly good, the clinical scores of the DH group were worse than those of the MP group.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".