Staged replacement of both hips and both knees in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are an uncommon population, and their outcomes are also difficult to predict. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether both bilateral cementless THA and cemented posterior-stabilized TKA (PS-TKA) can provide reliable outcomes for RA patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 30 RA patients (60 hips and 60 knees) who underwent both elective bilateral cementless THA and cemented PS-TKA, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Clinical, patient-reported, and radiographic data were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 84 months (range, 24-156). By the last follow-up, the post-operative range of motion, Harris Hip Score, Knee Society Score (KSS) clinical, KSS functional, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) hip, and WOMAC knee scores were significantly improved compared to the preoperative values. All patients achieved the ability to walk. In addition, overall satisfaction scores on a 100-point scale were 92.5 after THA and 89.6 after TKA. Only one patient underwent revision surgery due to knee joint instability, and all replaced hips and knees were radiographically stable by the assessment of the radiolucent line. The proportion of implants that did not suffer loosening or require revision surgery was 99.2% during the 84-month follow-up, based on Kaplan-Meier analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that bilateral cementless THA and cemented PS-TKA provides reliable mid-long-term clinical, patient-reported, and radiographic outcomes in RA patients, with high survivorship and patient 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 | 0.000 | 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".