No-synovectomy improves the health-related quality of life after total knee arthroplasty: A randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study assessed the clinical outcomes of total knee replacement with and without synovectomy among patients with osteoarthritis. Methods A randomised controlled trial of 70 patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis was conducted by individually randomizing (simple randomization) patients to either no synovectomy (group 1 n=35) or synovectomy (group 2 n=35). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, WOMAC score, knee pain by visual analogue score, health related quality of life by Short Form 12, postoperative blood loss, and hemoglobin levels immediately after surgery and one year postoperative. Results Postoperatively, The WOMAC score was 87 (82, 97) in group 1 and 84 (76, 96) in group 2. The VAS score was 6 (5.00, 8.00) and 7 (5.00, 8.00) in group 1 and 2 respectively. The physical composite score (PCS) of the SF-12 score was 52 (46, 56) in group 1 and 50 (43, 54) in group 2. The mental composite score of the SF-12 was 58(55, 61) and 51 (45, 57) in group 1 and 2 respectively with significant difference between groups. The median hemoglobin drop was 1.7 (1.35, 2.00) grams in group 1 and 3 (2.45, 3.30) grams in group 2. The median drain blood loss was 250 ml (200, 350) and 800 ml (450, 1200) in group 1 and 2 respectively. Patients in group 1 had a better flexion range than group 2. Conclusion Total knee arthroplasty performed without synovectomy reduces postoperative blood loss, improves the flexion range and patients’ quality of life scores.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".