Articulating spacers in elderly patients affected by periprosthetic knee infection: clinical findings and outcome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the two-stage technique is a validated strategy in periprosthetic joint infections, there is a lack of data on the patients' clinical outcomes after the spacer placement. This study aims at evaluating the quality of life, joint function, and pain in patients over 70 years affected by periprosthetic joint infection treated with a two-stage exchange using metal on polyethylene spacers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a follow-up study to evaluate the quality of life and functionality of consecutive patients over 70 years treated for PJI at our institution using a validated assessment set including the Western Ontario and Mac Master University (WOMAC) score, Knee Society Score (KSS), numerical rating scale (NRS). Knee Range of Movement (ROM) before and after the surgery was also analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients with a mean age of 76 ± 5.3 years were included. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most isolated microorganisms. In the preoperative study group, the WOMAC score was 48.4 ± 18.9, and the KSS objective and functional scores were 37.6 ± 17.3 and 27.6 ± 22.3, respectively. NRS was 7.3 ± 1.8. After three months of follow-up, we found better results than preoperative clinical evaluation. We retrieved similar results comparing our post-operative PROMS (WOMAC and KSS scores) with published thresholds for treatment success two months after primary total knee arthroplasty. The infection eradication rate was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: The two-stage technique confirmed its efficacy in the treatment of PJI. Patients over 70 years who had undergone the first stage of the two-stage technique for PJI showed a good quality of life and knee function.
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".