CEMENTED VERSUS UNCEMENTED KNEE JOINT ARTHROPLASTIES: FIVE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP COMPARING FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES AND REVISION RATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to examine revision rates and patient reported outcome scores (PROMS) for cemented and uncemented primary total knee joint replacement (TKJR) at six months, one year and five years post-operatively. Patients and Methods: This matched cohort study involved secondary analyses of data collected as part of a large prospective observational study monitoring outcomes following knee replacement in Christchurch, New Zealand. Cemented and uncemented TKJR participants (n = 1526) were matched on age (± 5 years), sex and body mass index (BMI). From this larger sample, PROMS data, Oxford Knee Score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), out to five years post-operatively were analysed for a matched subset of participants (n = 252). The average age of participants was 67.9 years (SD 9.4, range 38-94). There were no differences between cemented and uncemented cohorts on the basis of age, sex, BMI or comorbidities, revision rates or PROMS outcomes. Cemented procedures had greater skin to skin times than uncemented procedures (p < 0.01). Unadjusted outcomes comparing risk for revision across the two participant cohorts did not significantly differ. Overall rates for revision were low (cemented 3.2% v uncemented 2.7%, p=0.70). Propensity adjusted associations between baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, comorbidity, baseline Oxford and baseline WOMAC scores) also revealed no differences in risk for revision at any post-operative timepoint. In this large multi-surgeon matched cohort study there were no significant differences in functional outcomes or revision rates, when outcomes following modern cemented and uncemented TKJR were compared out to 5-year follow up. Based on our findings, uncemented TKJR is predictable irrespective of patient's age, BMI or gender
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".