Comparison of Early Results Between Bone-Conserving and Conventional High-Flexion Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The purpose of this study was to compare early clinical and radiographic results between bone-conserving and conventional high-flexion posterior-stabilized TKA.Methods: Two hundred and eighty-five patients (477 knees; mean age, 68.7 years) received a NexGen Legacy posterior-stabilized high-flex (NexGen LPS-Flex) TKA and 280 patients (472 knees; mean age, 70.1 years) received a Freedom posterior-stabilized prosthesis.The mean follow-up was 3.5 (range, 2 to 5 years) for each group.Results: Significantly less bone was resected from the distal femur (mean, 8.7 vs 7.8 mm), the posterior femoral condyles (mean, 11.5 vs 5.7 mm), and the intercondylar notch (mean, 11 vs 8.1 cm 3 ) in the Freedom TKA group compared with the NexGen LPS-Flex TKA group.There were no significant differences between the 2 groups at the latest follow-up regarding the Knee Society score (91 vs 93 points), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (40 vs 38 points), knee range of motion (125 vs 128), the University of California, Los Angeles activity score (6.0 vs 6.2 points), and radiographic findings.The estimated survival rate was 99% (95% confidence interval, 92% to 100%) for the NexGen LPS-Flex TKA group and 99.6% (95% confidence interval, 93% to 100%) for the Freedom TKA group, with revision or aseptic loosening as the endpoint at 3.5 years after the operation.Conclusion: The present study suggests that the early clinical and radiographic results of the bone-conserving Freedom TKA were similar to those of the conventional NexGen LPS-Flex TKA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".