Higher satisfaction and function scores in restricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment with medial pivot design total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and medial pivot (MP) knee designs already showed superior outcomes in independent comparative studies. The objective of this study was to assess whether rKA with MP TKA provides better clinical and functional outcomes compared to mechanical alignment (MA) with MP TKA. METHODS: This is a randomised, parallel two group study involving a total of 98 patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly allocated to either rKA or MA TKA procedures conducted with a MP prothesis using patient-specific instruments between 2017 and 2020. Final follow-up was at 2 years postoperatively. Demographic data and clinical and functional scores (Oxford knee score, knee society score [KSS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], forgotten joint score [FJS]) were collected and compared preoperative, 1 year postoperative and 2 years postoperative. Coronal plane alignment of the knee and functional knee phenotype classification were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients (rKA) and 51 patients (MA) were included in final analysis. Superior joint awareness scores (FJS) were found at 1 year postoperative for rKA (62.2 vs. 52.4, p = 0.04). KSS subscores (expectation score, satisfaction score) improved with rKA with significant differences at both 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Major differences between rKA and MA were found in subgroup analysis of varus and neutral CPAK phenotypes. Both 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, FJS was significantly better in KA compared with MA in varus CPAK phenotypes (63.1 vs. 44.9, p = 0.03; 71.1 vs. 46.0, p = 0.005). Further clinical and functional scores showed improvement in the varus CPAK phenotypes with predominantly significant improvement in the expectation and satisfaction KSS subscores. No significant differences were found in the comparison of rKA and MA in neutral CPAK phenotypes. CONCLUSION: The rKA of MP TKA design shows superior patient satisfaction and self-reported function when compared to MA MP TKA. Furthermore, rKA MP TKA shows superior joint awareness at early postoperative stage. The most important clinical relevance of this study is the clear superiority of rKA in varus phenotypes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".