Effect of total knee arthroplasty for valgus knee correction on clinical outcome and patellar position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the effect of different degrees of valgus deformity correction on patellar position and clinical outcome in patients with valgus knees after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed and followed 118 patients with valgus knees. Based on the post-operative hip-knee-ankle (HKA), patients were divided into three groups: neutral (±3°), mild (3-6°), and severe (> 6°). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), range of motion (ROM), and Knee Society Score (KSS) were used to evaluate post-operative clinical efficacy. Also, the patellar tilt angle (ε-angle), congruence angle (θ-angle), and Insall-Salvati index (ISI) were used to represent the patellar position. Post-operative observation indicators included HKA, angle of the femur (α-angle), tibial angle (β-angle), femoral component flexion angle (γ-angle), and tibial component posterior slope angle (δ-angle). RESULTS: All patients showed significant improvements in HKA, ROM, WOMAC, and KSS after operation (P < 0.001). Regarding patellar position, the ISI values decreased to varying degrees (P < 0.05). The patellar tilt angle was significantly increased in the severe valgus group compared to that in the mild valgus and neutral groups (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that the degree of post-operative residual valgus was significantly affected by WOMAC, KSS, α-, ε-, and θ-angles. CONCLUSION: Minor valgus undercorrection did not affect the short-term outcome after TKA; however, when the residual valgus angle was > 6°, the post-operative scores were significantly reduced. Inadequate valgus correction does not result in significant changes in patellar height but may increase the risk of poor patellar tracking.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".