Development of application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to compare total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between countries with regard to epidemiologic data and surgical technique by the use of worldwide registers and compare findings with a previous report after one decade. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in November 2022 and compared to previous reports from 2010. We extracted data regarding implanted TKAs, patients' age distribution, procedure types, fixation and revision rates. After identification of 28 national arthroplasty registers, 8of them, namely Australia, Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland and Sweden, offered sufficient data and were included in final analysis. RESULTS: A large variation was found in the annual number of implantations per 100,000 inhabitants with a range from 77 to 210.2 (mean 132.8). The fixation type varied strongly as well, e.g. over 95% of totally cemented TKAs in Sweden versus 61.2% cemented fixation in Denmark. Another significant difference was the use of patellar resurfacing in TKA, ranging from 47.3% (Canada) using a patellar button in TKA to less than 5% (Sweden). Within the period of one decade, the mean overall number of annual implantations increased (10%), whilst relative number of revisions decreased, the use of cemented TKA decreased from 87 to 74%, and the use of patella button remained largely inhomogeneous. CONCLUSION: Comparison of arthroplasty registers revealed large differences regarding the annual number of primary TKAs per inhabitant as well as primary TKA procedure types with an increase of annual implantations, decrease of relative number of revisions, and a decrease of the use of cemented systems over the period of one decade.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".