MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404402530 · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2024.11.010

Reoperations After Operatively and Non-Operatively Treated Periprosthetic Knee Fractures: A Nationwide Study on 1,931 Fractures After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

2024· article· en· W4404402530 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefan Kastalag Risager, Kristine Bollerup Arndt, Charlotte Abrahamsen, Bjarke Viberg, Anders Odgaard, Martin Lindberg‐Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Arthroplasty · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOdense UniversitetshospitalGentofte HospitalRigshospitaletArthritis SocietyGigtforeningen
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic knee fracture (PPKF) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be difficult to treat. A PPKF can be treated both operatively and nonoperatively, and the treatment varies between fracture sites. This study aimed to assess the risk of reoperation according to the fracture site and treatment of the PPKF. METHOD: This study is a nationwide cohort study using register data from 1997 to 2022. Cruciate-retaining or posterior-stabilized primary TKA were identified from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Subsequent PPKFs, fracture treatments, and later reoperations were identified through the International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition (ICD-10) diagnosis and procedure codes in the Danish National Patient Register. In addition, indications for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register were used to identify PPKFs and the reason for reoperation. RESULTS: We included 1,931 PPKFs (1,494 femoral, 207 patellae, and 230 tibial) with an overall two-year reoperation risk of 20% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18 to 23). Femoral PPKFs had a two-year reoperation risk of 16% (CI: 12 to 22) after nonoperative treatment and 21% (CI: 18 to 24) after operative treatment. Patellar PPKFs had a two-year reoperation risk in five to 17 after nonoperative treatment and 46% (CI: 30 to 69) after operative treatment. Tibial PPKFs had a two-year reoperation risk of 17% (CI: 11 to 27) after nonoperative treatment and 36% (25 to 53) after operative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The overall two-year reoperation risk was 20% (CI: 18 to 23). Operative-treated PPKFs had a higher risk of reoperation across all fracture locations. The highest reoperation risk was found after operatively treated patella and tibial PPKFs (46 and 36%, respectively), and the lowest reoperation risk was found after nonoperative-treated patella PPKFs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ArthroplastySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207