Does medullary diameter to stem width ratio and stem length affect outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasties? A case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the ratio of stem size to intramedullary canal diameter, stem length, and functional outcome in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) procedures, which remains largely unexplored in the current literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single surgeon series of RTKA procedures performed between October 2014 and November 2022 were included in this case series, and data were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 32 patients (27 females, 5 males; mean age: 73.2±8.1 years; range, 52 to 88 years) were identified, with a minimum follow-up period of five months and a maximum of eight years. Filtering the patients based on >24 month follow-up, we were left with 13 patients aged between 65 and 88 (mean 74.9±6.9) years. The latest X-rays of patients were analyzed, and the ratio of intramedullary canal diameter to stem width was calculated for both femur and tibia in both anteroposterior and lateral planes. Household income, preoperative C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, comorbidities, body mass index, and implant dimensions were also recorded. Postoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form-12 (SF-12) scores, and range of motion (ROM) measurements were used to evaluate functional outcome. RESULTS: A moderate negative relationship between the tibial canal fill ratio (CFR) in anteroposterior views and ROM of the patients was noted. Additionally, a significant positive correlation was found between SF-12 physical score and CFR in lateral view. A moderate level of correlation between femoral CFR in anteroposterior views was also established. Due to insufficient data, joint ROM data did not show normal distribution. Therefore, a cutoff value indicating the relationship between the stem size and knee ROM could not be calculated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Multiple regression analysis did not yield significant results, suggesting that hypothesized predictor variables were not sufficient to predict the variation in functional scores. Otherwise, no clear statistical importance or correlation between functional scores, such as WOMAC or SF-12, and CFR was found. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the findings suggest that other factors, such as other patient characteristics, surgical techniques, or implant designs, may have a more substantial impact on the functional outcomes in RTKA patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".