MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285036410 · doi:10.1177/10225536221115273

Functional outcomes of residual varus alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty for varus osteoarthritis: A preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses-compliant meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4285036410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seung-Beom Han, Ki-Mo Jang, Jun Hyun Kim, Sang‐Bum Kim, Kyun-Ho Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of orthopaedic surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisConfidence intervalOxford knee scoreCochrane LibraryTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyMEDLINEPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background One in five patients with mechanical alignment (MA) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was reportedly dissatisfied. As constitutional varus knees are common, restoring the patients’ natural residual varus (RV) alignment is as an appealing alternative to neutral MA. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of RV alignment on the functional outcomes compared with those of MA in TKA for the knees with varus osteoarthritis. Methods The MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were comprehensively searched for papers comparing the effects of RV alignment and MA on the functional outcomes from the time of inception of the databases to July 2020. Studies comparing the functional outcomes in the knees subjected to TKA with RV alignment (case group) and MA (control group) were included. The Knee Society knee and functional scores (KSKS and KSFS, respectively), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford knee score (OKS), and forgotten joint score (FJS) were compared. Results Seven studies were finally included; all studies showed a low risk of selection bias and provided detailed demographic data. The pooled mean difference in the KSKS (0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.14 to 0.27; p = 0.55) and KSFS (0.08, 95% CI: −0.08 to 0.35; p = 0.56) between RV alignment and MA did not significantly differ. The pooled mean differences in the WOMAC (−0.25, 95% CI: −0.57 to 0.07; p = 0.12), OKS (0.06, 95% CI: −0.15 to 0.27; p = 0.56), and FJS (0.41, 95% CI: −0.18 to 1.00; p = 0.18) between the groups were not significant. Conclusion The beneficial effects of RV alignment on the functional outcomes are limited compared to those of MA in TKA for varus osteoarthritis to date. Currently, TKA with neutral MA should be considered as the gold standard.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.061
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.408
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.007 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of orthopaedic surgerySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207