Patients with Kashin-Beck Disease Obtained Lower Functional Activities but Better Satisfaction Than Patients with Osteoarthritis After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Increasingly, patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is being recognized as an important measure of health-care quality in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. But satisfaction after TKA has not yet been reported in Kashin-Beck disease (KBD). We aim to examine satisfaction and clinical efficacy of TKA in the treatment of OA and KBD. Methods: Retrospectively review of 37 KBD patients (45 knees) and 52 OA patients (58 knees) who underwent TKA from January 2015 to January 2017. Data of outcome measures such as Knee Society knee score (KSKS) and function score (KSFS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and radiographic evaluation were collected preoperatively and during the last follow-up. Satisfaction was compared using the 2011 Knee Society Scoring System. Results: There were no differences in age, gender, BMI and Follow-up time. KBD patients had significantly worse preoperative range of motion, KSKS, and mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) compared with OA patients ( P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the KSKS, KSFS, WOMAC score, and radiographic parameters of all patients significantly improved ( P < 0.05), but the satisfaction was higher in KBD patients than in OA ( P < 0.05). Further analysis showed that KSFS, WOMAC total, pain, stiffness, and function scores were significantly worse for KBD ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Patient satisfaction was greater but clinical outcomes were inferior in KBD than in OA. This study also demonstrated that TKA is an effective surgical procedure for KBD, but how to improve functional outcomes needs to be further studied. Keywords: Kashin-Beck disease, osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty, satisfaction
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".