High Survivorship of Hybrid Fixation Technique in Aseptic Condylar Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Minimal Metaphyseal Bone Loss: 5-10 Year Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of hybrid fixation technique in aseptic condylar revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). A retrospective consecutive study of patients with minimal metaphyseal bone loss who underwent aseptic rTKA with press-fit cementless femoral stems and short cemented tibial stems. Primary outcome measure was mechanical failure. Surgical complications, reoperations and revision for any cause were collected and Knee society score at final follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate implant survivorship. Seventy-three patients were included with minimum 5 years follow-up with a mean age of 74.5 years. At mean follow-up of 8.5 years (range 5-10), only two patients required revision, both for infection. Radiographic evaluation was undertaken for all remaining patients at final follow-up and showed no evidence of mechanical failure. Six patients (8.4%) showed non-progressive radiolucent lines around the cementless femoral stem with only one having a pedestal at the tip of the femoral stem and four patients (5.6%) showed non-progressive radiolucent lines around the cemented tibial stem. Mean KSS score was 80.6 (standard deviation 13.8) indicating satisfactory clinical outcomes. Using "any cause implant revision" as an end point, implant survivorship for this construct was 97.3% at mean 8.5 years. In our experience, a hybrid fixation technique with a press-fit cementless femoral stem and a short-cemented tibial stemmed construct achieves excellent medium- to long-term outcomes in aseptic condylar revision cases with minimal metaphyseal bone loss.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".