Does patient-specific instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty improve long-term satisfaction or function? A randomized trial with a 9-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) aims to increase the accuracy of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the long-term benefit compared to conventional instrumentation (CI), is still controversial. This randomized controlled trial compares the long-term outcomes between PSI and CI in TKA. Methods: Patients submitted to PSI or CI TKA with a minimum follow-up of 8 years were evaluated. Satisfaction levels, forgotten joint score (FJS) and Western Ontario and McMaster university osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores were compared. Regarding descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation and frequencies were obtained. For inferential statistics we used the t test for independent samples the Mann-Whitney test and the Wilcoxon Test. Results: A total of 50 TKA were included (48% CI; 52% PSI) with an average follow-up time of 9.3 years. At the final follow-up the WOMAC score was similar between groups (p=0.846; CI:26.8±22.5; PSI:26.8±25.3). Similarly, no differences were seen for the FJS (p=0.785; CI:59.6±35.1; PSI:57.1±36.2) or satisfaction (p=0.486; CI:8.1±2.8; PSI:9.1±1.4). However, at the final follow-up, the total WOMAC score had worse results when compared to the previous evaluations (p=0.013 for CI group; p=0.009 for PSI group). No significant differences in the satisfaction levels were detected regarding the initial and final evaluations (p=0.581 for CI group; p=0.936 for PSI group). Conclusions: Nine years after TKA, PSI and CI patients reported similar levels of satisfaction and functioning. Both groups achieved similar results concerning the WOMAC, FJS scores and satisfaction levels. This study suggests that long-term satisfaction and functioning levels are similar in both PSI and CI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".