The impact of primary patella resurfacing on health-related quality of life outcomes and return to sport in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Primary patella resurfacing (PPR) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a topic without clear clinical evidence. Using Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROM), previous work found TKA patients without PPR to have more pain postoperatively, but little is known whether this may impede patients from returning to their usual leisure sport. This observational study aimed at evaluating the treatment effect of PPR, with PROMs and return to sport (RTS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 156 primary TKA patients were retrospectively included from August 2019 to November 2020, from a single hospital in Germany. PROMs were measured with the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the EuroQoL Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Leisure sport with three levels of intensity (never, sometimes, regular) were requested. The treatment effect of PPR was evaluated with a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach, with several confounders. RESULTS: Descriptively, the mean WOMAC total score and the mean WOMAC pain score were postoperatively better with PPR, ( - 4.8 points, - 1.1 points), then without PPR. The mean improvements of the WOMAC total score were better with PPR ( - 7.8 points). Mean improvements for the WOMAC pain score were also better with PPR ( - 1.2 points). Mean EQ-VAS were postoperatively similar, and the mean improvements were better with PPR (3.4 points). Rate of RTS was 93% for patients with PPR and 95% for patients without PPR. The DiD revealed minor differences in PROMs and RTS, not to result in statistically significant treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: There was no treatment effect for TKA with PPR, regarding PROMs and RTS, and descriptive differences were below published thresholds for clinical relevance. Rate of RTS was high for all patients, regardless of PPR. For the two endpoint categories, there was no measurable advantage of TKA with PPR over TKA without PPR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".