Can a Total Knee System Providing 1 mm Increment of Polyethylene Insert Thickness Offer a Clinical Benefit?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and polyethylene (PE) insert thickness between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems providing 1 mm and 2 mm increments. Materials and Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 50 patients (100 knees) undergoing same-day or staggered bilateral TKA were randomized to receive a TKA system providing 1 mm increments in one knee (1 mm group) and a TKA system providing 2 mm increments in the other knee (2 mm group). At 2 years postoperatively, Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), range of motion (ROM), and insert thicknesses were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 47 patients (94 knees) participated in follow-up analysis. In each group, patient-reported outcomes improved significantly after TKA (all, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes. The mean ROM was not significantly different between groups at preoperative and 2-year points. The rate of postoperative flexion contracture ≥ 5° was 2.1% and 4.3%, and the rate of postoperative recurvatum ≥ 5° was 4.3% and 2.1% in the 1 mm group and 2 mm, respectively (all, p = 1.000). Mean insert thickness was significantly thinner in the 1 mm group than the 2 mm group (p = 0.001). The usage rate of a thick insert (≥14 mm) was 12.7% and 38.3% in the 1 mm group and 2 mm group (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The use of a TKA system providing 1 mm PE insert thickness increments offered no clinical benefit in terms of patient reported outcomes over systems with 2 mm increments at 2 years of follow-up. However, the TKA system with 1 mm increments showed significantly thinner PE insert usage. As a theoretical advantage of 1 mm increments has yet to be proven, the mid- to long-term effects of thinner PE insert usage must be determined.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".