Improving alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric assessment of a surgical navigation tool with computed tomography imaging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the accuracy of an imageless, optical surgical navigation tool to assist with femoral and tibial bone cuts performed during TKA.Patients and methods Six board-certified orthopedic surgeons participated in a laboratory cadaver investigation, performing femoral and tibial bone cuts with the assistance of a computer navigation tool. Femoral and tibial varus/valgus, tibial slope, femoral flexion, and both femoral and tibial rotation measurements from the device were compared with angular measurements calculated from computed tomography (CT) images of the knees.Results Measurements with the navigation tool were highly correlated with those obtained from CT scans in all three axes. For the distal femoral cut, the absolute mean difference in varus/valgus was 0.83° (SD 0.46°, r = 0.76), femoral flexion was 1.91° (SD 1.16°, r = 0.85), and femoral rotation was 1.29° (SD 1.01°, r = 0.88) relative to Whiteside’s line and 0.97° (SD 0.56°, r = 0.81) relative to the posterior condylar axis. For the tibia, the absolute mean difference in varus/valgus was 1.08° (SD 0.64°, r = 0.85), posterior slope was 2.78° (SD 1.40°, r = 0.60), and rotation relative to the anteroposterior axis (posterior cruciate ligament to the medial third of the tibial tuberosity) was 2.98° (SD 2.54°, r = 0.79).Conclusion Utilization of an imageless navigation tool may aid surgeons in accurately performing and monitoring femoral and tibial bone cuts, and implant rotation in TKA and thus, more accurately align TKA components.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it