Tibial Slope Is Not Associated With Implant Migration Following Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Single Implant Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influence of tibial slope on tibial component migration following total knee arthroplasty has not been widely studied, although excessive posterior slope has been implicated in some failures. As implant micromotion measured with radiostereometric analysis can indicate successful fixation, the purpose of this study was to determine the associations between tibial slope, tibial component migration, and inducible displacement. METHODS: Radiostereometric analyses at 6 visits over 2 years quantified implant migration for 200 cemented total knee arthroplasties. Longitudinal data analysis examined the influence of postoperative tibial slope on implant migration (overall maximum total point motion (MTPM) migration and anterior-posterior tilt migration), accounting for age, sex, and body mass index. The correlations of tibial slope with 1-year migration, continuous migration, and inducible displacements were also examined. Additionally, the amount of change in slope was compared to migration. RESULTS: The mean posterior tibial slope was 8.0° (standard deviation [SD] 3.8°) preoperatively and 3.8° (SD 3.1°) postoperatively, with a mean reduction in slope of 4.2° (SD 4.7°). Postoperative tibial slope (range 14.0° posterior slope to 3.4° anterior slope) was not associated with longitudinal overall migration (P = .671) or anterior-posterior tilt migration (P = .704). There was no association between postoperative tibial slope and migration at 1 year postoperatively (P = .441 for MTPM migration, P = .570 for tilt migration), change in migration from 1 to 2 years (P = .951), or inducible displacement (P = .970 MTPM, P = .730 tilt). The amount of change in tibial slope was also not associated with migration or inducible displacement. CONCLUSIONS: Residual and change in postoperative tibial slope were not associated with implant migration into tilt or overall migration, or inducible displacement for a single implant design. These findings support positioning tibial implants in a range of slopes, which may support patient-specific approaches to implant alignment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".