Effect of Adding Stem Extension to a Short-Keeled Knee Implant on the Risk of Tibial Loosening: a Historical Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short-keeled tibial implants may be at higher risk of aseptic loosening. Stem augmentation has been suggested to improve its fixation. We aimed to assess whether this technique could decrease the loosening rate of such tibial implants. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the knees receiving stemmed versus nonstemmed versions of a short-keeled prosthesis. A total of 932 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty using a Persona prosthesis with >24-month follow-up (mean 53.7) were included, of whom 212 were at high risk of loosening due to osteoporosis or high body mass index (BMI). The rate of tibial aseptic loosening in high-risk patients and in the whole cohort was compared between those with and without stem extension. Multivariable analysis was conducted to identify the risk factors of loosening. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, in 203 knees (21.8%), a cemented short stem was used, versus 729 knees (78.2%) without. The tibial implant revision rates for loosening were 2.06% and 0.99% for nonstemmed and stemmed cases, respectively ( P = 0.551). When the cohort was categorized based on the loosening risk factors, the loosening risk was significantly higher in the high-risk than in the low-risk group, regardless of stem status (log-rank test = 8.1, hazard ratio = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.78, 2.57, P = 0.005). 212 patients were at high risk of loosening, due to high BMI or osteoporosis, among whom the risk of aseptic loosening was higher when a stem was not used (log-rank = 32.1, hazard ratio = 4.95, 95% CI = 4.05, 5.86, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, osteoporosis, BMI ≥35, and smoking were correlated with loosening. CONCLUSION: The failure rate was markedly lower in the stemmed group of the patients at elevated risk of aseptic loosening due to osteoporosis and/or high BMI. In the entire cohort, the risk of loosening in stemmed tibial implants was similar to the nonstemmed group. The findings support a protective role for the stem in patients at high risk of failure of the cemented tibial implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III therapeutic.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".