MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388844189 · doi:10.53555/jptcp.v30i18.3349

FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME OF TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT WITH AND WITHOUT PATELLAR RESURFACING

2023· article· en· W4388844189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Imran Haider, Adnan Nazir, Muhammad Imran Anjum, Ahmad Jamal, Muhammad Adeel Razzaque, Zahid Iqbal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal knee replacementOutcome (game theory)MedicinePhysical therapySurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a commonly performed surgery that greatly improves the management of end-stage knee osteoarthritis and related conditions. While TKR is generally effective at reducing pain and improving knee function, there is ongoing debate in the orthopedic community about whether to include patellar resurfacing (PS) in the procedure. PS involves replacing the kneecap and is thought to relieve anterior knee pain (AKP), enhance patellar tracking, and improve functional outcomes. However, concerns persist about possible complications like component loosening and fractures associated with PS. Aims: To investigate the influence of patellar resurfacing on postoperative functional outcomes in patients undergoing TKR. Methods: The study conducted a prospective observational analysis, comparing functional outcomes in 80 patients, divided into two groups: those who had TKR with PS (n=40) and those who had TKR without it (n=40). All patients were over 18 years old and had Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4 knee osteoarthritis, undergoing primary TKR. Data was collected preoperatively and at several postoperative time points (6 months, 1 year, and 2 years) to assess changes in functional outcomes. Results: Both the PS and non-resurfacing groups demonstrated substantial progresses in clinical scores after TKR. At the 6-month postoperative mark, the PS group showed a remarkable mean improvement of 47.7 points on the knee pain scale, 46.2 points on the Knee Society Score (KSS), and 25.0 points on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Similarly, the non-resurfacing group exhibited significant improvements with a mean improvement of 48.7 points on the knee pain scale, 50.0 points on the KSS, and 25.0 points on the WOMAC. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at any of the postoperative time points (p > 0.05), indicating that PS did not provide a significant advantage in terms of pain relief or functional outcomes. Conclusion: PS does not significantly improve functional outcomes or pain relief in TKR patients and does not increase the risk of complications. These findings provide crucial guidance for both orthopedic surgeons and patients in making informed decisions about TKR surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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 topicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→