Medial pivot prosthesis has a better functional score and lower complication rate than posterior-stabilized prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose We aimed to compare the postoperative clinical efficacy and safety of medial pivot (MP) prosthesis and posterior-stabilized (PS) prosthesis in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods All studies involving MP and PS prosthesis in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched since the establishment of the database. The included outcomes were knee range of motion (ROM), functional score, radiographic results, complication rate, and revision rate. Studies were independently evaluated by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for case–control studies and the assessment tool of the Cochrane Collaboration for randomized controlled trials. I2 was used to test the heterogeneity, and fixed- or random-effects models were selected for meta-analysis according to the heterogeneity results. Results A total of 19 studies, consisting of 3592 patients and 3783 knees (MP: 1811 knees, PS: 1972 knees), were included in the meta-analysis. The WOMAC (MD = − 1.11, 95% CI − 1.98 to − 0.23; P = 0.01) and HSS (MD = − 4.32, 95% CI − 8.30 to − 0.34; P = 0.03) in the MP group were significantly lower compared with the PS group, and the complication rate (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87; P = 0.01) was also lower compared with the PS group. There was no significant difference in ROM, radiographic results, and revision rate between the two groups (P > 0.5). Conclusions The existing literature provided evidence to support better clinical effect and lower complication rate of MP prosthesis compared to PS prosthesis. These results provide a reference for clinicians when choosing a suitable prosthesis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".