Muscle Activity and Biomechanics While Descending a Staircase After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Study Comparing Different Posterior Stabilized and Medial Ball-and-Socket Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients report more difficulty when descending stairs compared to level walking after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Different implant designs can affect knee biomechanics and muscle activity during gait, but their effect during stair descent is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate knee biomechanics and muscle activations of quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius muscles during a stair descent task in patients who underwent TKA with either a posterior stabilized (PS) or medial ball-and-socket (MBS) implant and to compare them to a group of healthy controls. METHODS: There were 28 TKA patients who were randomized to either an MBS (n = 14) or PS (n = 14) implant and were compared with 14 controls. Patients visited the biomechanics lab approximately 12 months after TKA, where knee biomechanics and muscle activity were measured as they descended a 3-step staircase. RESULTS: Compared to the MBS and control groups, the PS group descended the stairs with a reduced knee flexion angle and greater hamstring muscle activation throughout single limb support. Knee joint moments and power were similar between the MBS and PS groups, but neither reached the level of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Lower knee flexion angles and increased hamstring muscle activity indicated that the PS group descended the stairs with a stiffer knee gait pattern than the MBS group. The MBS implant design may provide additional stability as patients require less muscle activity than the PS group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".