Almost 79% survival rate at 10‐year follow‐up for the patellofemoral joint arthroplasty: An Italian prosthetic registry study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were (1) to evaluate the survival of patellofemoral joint (PFJ) arthroplasty in a large cohort of patients using data obtained from an Italian regional arthroplasty registry and (2) to collect clinical outcomes of a subgroup of patients, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years. The hypotheses were that PFJ arthroplasty is a procedure that had good survival and clinical outcomes, not inferior to those reported in the literature for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The Register of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO) of Emilia-Romagna (ER) (Italy) database was searched for the inclusion of all PFJ arthroplasties implanted between 2003 and 2019. PFJ arthroplasties were excluded if they were implanted in patients who lived outside of the ER. The survival information was extrapolated from the RIPO considering the partial or total revision of the implant as failure; moreover, a subgroup of patients was contacted and interviewed by telephone to collect clinical outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data. The survival curve was calculated and plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 126 arthroplasties in 114 patients were included in the final analysis (mean age at surgery 60.1 ± 11.5 years old). The main causes of patellofemoral arthroplasty were primary osteoarthritis (88%) and posttraumatic arthritis (7%). The survival was 90.4 ± 30.6 and 78.8 ± 51.5 at 5 and 10 years of follow-up, respectively. At the latest follow-up, 23 implants failed (18.3%). The main cause of revision was osteoarthrosis progression (34.8%). A total of 44 patients were contacted by telephone to collect clinical outcomes: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, functional Knee Society Score, Forgotten Joint Score and Oxford Knee Score. These patients reported good to excellent scores at a medium follow-up of 10.3 ± 4.7 years. CONCLUSIONS: The PFJ showed good survival and clinical outcomes and could be considered a valuable option for patients affected by isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".