MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389237616 · doi:10.3390/jcm12237453

Anterior Referencing versus Posterior Referencing in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2023· review· en· W4389237616 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filippo Familiari, Michele Mercurio, Francesco Napoleone, Olimpio Galasso, Ermes Giuzio, R Simonetta, Michelangelo Palco, Nicholas N. DePhillipo, Giorgio Gasparini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyWOMACMEDLINESubgroup analysisStrictly standardized mean differenceSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicineOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes between anterior referencing (AR) and posterior referencing (PR) systems in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). (2) Methods: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases were searched in August 2022. Data extracted for quantitative analysis included the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) index, knee ROM, posterior condylar offset (PCO), and the posterior condylar offset ratio (PCOR). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Modified Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment. Randomized controlled trials were assessed with version 2 of the risk of bias tool (RoB2), recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. (3) Results: For the meta-analysis, five comparative studies met the eligibility criteria. There were 584 patients in all, 294 of whom had AR TKA and 290 of whom had PR TKA. Three studies with 181 and 179 cases in the AR and PR groups, respectively, had reported preoperative KSS. A statistically significant difference was found favoring the PR group. (p = 0.01). The same cases’ postoperative range of motion was documented, and a statistically significant difference was discovered in favor of the AR group. Postoperative PCO was described in four studies in 243 and 241 cases in the AR and PR TKA groups, respectively, and a statistically significant difference was found with a higher postoperative PCO in the PR group (p = 0.003). Postoperative PCOR was calculated in two studies in the same cases in the AR and PR TKA groups and a statistically significant difference was found with a higher postoperative PCOR in the PR group (p = 0.002). (4) Conclusion: Anterior referencing for TKA may result in improved knee ROM postoperatively, while posterior referencing may produce larger PCO and PCOR on postoperative imaging. However, no significant differences were noted in clinical outcomes between the AR and PR groups at final follow-up.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.055
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207