Randomized controlled trial comparing traditional versus enhanced-fixation designs of a novel cemented total knee arthroplasty tibial component
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: A novel enhanced cement fixation (EF) tibial implant with deeper cement pockets and a more roughened bonding surface was released to market for an existing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system.This randomized controlled trial assessed fixation of the both the EF (ATTUNE S+) and standard (Std; ATTUNE S) using radiostereometric analysis. Methods: Overall, 50 subjects were randomized (21 EF-TKA and 23 Std-TKA in the final analysis), and had follow-up visits at six weeks, and six, 12, and 24 months to assess migration of the tibial component. Low viscosity bone cement with tobramycin was used in a standardized fashion for all subjects. Patient-reported outcome measure data was captured at preoperative and all postoperative visits. Results: ). Mean two-year subsidence of the EF-TKA was 0.056 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.025 to 0.086) versus 0.006 mm (95% CI -0.029 to 0.040) for the Std-TKA, and the two-year maximum total point motion (MTPM) was 0.285 mm (95% upper confidence limit (UCL) ≤ 0.363) versus 0.346 mm (95% UCL ≤ 0.432), respectively, for a mean difference of -0.061 mm (95% CI -0.196 to 0.074). Inducible displacement also did not differ between groups. The MTPMs between 12 and 24 months for each group was below the published threshold of 0.2 mm for predicting early aseptic loosening (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Both the enhanced fixation and the standard tibial implant design showed fixation with a predicted low risk of long-term aseptic loosening.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".