Outcomes and motives for not proceeding with the second stage bilateral knee replacement: a comparison of cancelled and completed bilateral total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common treatment option for patients with bilateral symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, yet some patients do not proceed with their second procedure. Our study aimed to identify the rate and reasons why patients did not proceed with their second procedure and compare their functional outcomes, satisfaction and complication rates with those of patients who had completed a staged bilateral TKA. Methods: We determined the proportion of patients who underwent TKA but did not proceed with planned surgery for the second knee within 2 years, and compared their satisfaction with surgery, improvement in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and complications between groups. Results: Our study included 268 patients: 220 patients who underwent staged bilateral TKA and 48 patients who cancelled their second procedure. The most common reason for not proceeding with the second procedure was a slow recovery after the first TKA (43.2%), followed by functional improvement in symptoms in the unoperated knee negating the need for surgery (27.3%), poor experience with the first surgery (22.7%), treatment of other comorbidities necessitating cancellation of their second procedure (4.6%) and employment reasons (2.3%). Patients who cancelled their second procedure were noted to have a worse postoperative OKS improvement (p < 0.001) and lower satisfaction rate (p < 0.001), than patients who underwent staged bilateral TKA. Conclusion: About one-fifth of patients scheduled for staged bilateral TKA declined to proceed with the second knee surgery within 2 years showing a substantially decreased functional outcome and satisfaction rate. However, more than one-quarter (27.3%) of patients noted improvements in their contralateral (unoperated) knee, such that a second surgery was no longer felt to be necessary.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".