MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385331005

Posterior Cruciate-Retaining vs Posterior Cruciate-Stabilized Prosthesis in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

2023· article· en· W4385331005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianning Lin

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePosterior cruciate ligamentRange of motionWOMACOsteoarthritisProsthesisMeta-analysisKnee JointRandomized controlled trialTotal knee arthroplastySurgeryOrthodonticsInternal medicineAnterior cruciate ligament
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To evaluate the clinical and imaging results of posterior cruciate-retaining vs the posterior cruciate-stabilized method in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: PubMed, EMbase and Cochrane Library databases were used to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the posterior cruciate-retaining vs posterior cruciate-stabilized method in TKA. Determination of study quality and data extraction were performed by 2 reviewers. Study heterogeneity was assessed by ReviewManager (RevMan) software and meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 15 RCTs were finally included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that no significant differences were found in the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) (MD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.73 to 1.00), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (MD = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.00-1.18), knee extension range of motion (MD = 0.10; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.51)] or posterior tibial slope (MD = -0.09; 95% CI, -0.52-0.33) after surgery between the 2 groups. Compared with the posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis group, in the posterior cruciate-stabilized prosthesis group the active knee joint range of motion was significantly increased (MD = -6.99; 95% CI, -9.17 to -4.81), knee flexion was significantly increased (MD = -4.22; 95% CI, -6.03 to -2.41) and the mechanical tibial angle was closed to 6° (MD = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.46-1.25). There were no significant differences in residual knee pain (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.57-2.78), infection rate at the surgical site (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.13-1.88) or revision rate (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.15-2.32) between the 2 groups. Funnel plot revealed no significant bias in the included studies. Conclusions: In summary, patients who received a posterior cruciate-stabilized prosthesis had better knee joint active range of motion, knee flexion and mechanical femorotibial angle than patients who received a posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis. Due to the surgical difficulty involved in a posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis, junior doctors should choose a posterior cruciate-stabilized prosthesis first, and senior doctors should choose the prosthesis according to the patient's condition and the surgeon's proficiency at performing the surgery in question.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.051
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→