Age wise comparative analysis of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter indigenous experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study assesses the mid-term clinical and functional outcomes, implant survivorship and impact of age on patients implanted with either cruciate retaining/posterior stabilized (CR/PS) total knee system (TKS). Method: This is an ongoing, prospective, multicentre, real-world study enrolling 300 patients: younger adults (<55 years; n=69), older adults (55 years to <65 years; n=92) and elders (≥65 years; n=139). Primary safety endpoints: implant survivorship and cumulative revision rate. Secondary endpoints: Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, range of motion (ROM), SF-36 questionnaire for assessment of quality of life (QoL), radiographic analysis, and any adverse events at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1-3 years. Results: Primary endpoint demonstrated absence of any revision across all age categories during the 3 years study period. Secondary outcomes KSS (clinical and functional) showed non-significant difference among elderly (91.13±7.90 and 98.18±4.62, respectively) in comparison to young adults (91.03±8.61 and 98.91±3.75, respectively). All three age-groups showed significant improvement in ROM (p<0.001) till 3 years 121.05°±7.74°, 123.22°±4.26°, and 122.43°±5.8° respectively, with no differences among the age groups. We observed that WOMAC and SF-36 QoL scores improved with each follow-up (p<0.001) across all age groups. Radiographs showed no implant wear or osteolysis during the investigation. Conclusions: Age seems to play no notable role on the post-TKA outcomes. Over a 3-year period, we observed marked enhancements in patient measures such as ROM, KSS, WOMAC, and QoL indicating and strongly affirming the safety and efficacy of CR/PS TKS prostheses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".