Comparison of outcomes between resurfaced and unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty using medial congruent liners: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Total knee replacements are becoming more prevalent. There is still a lot of controversy regarding patellar resurfacing. Surgeons advocating for resurfacing state reduced risk for anterior knee pain and need for future revision surgery. Our goal was to determine if patients would have similar outcomes if the patella is left unresurfaced or resurfaced with a medial congruent liner design. Patients and methods: A multi-surgeon retrospective chart review was conducted in a tertiary academic center, to identify all patients who received a total knee arthroplasty utilizing a medial congruent (MC) polyethylene liner between January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. All included patients were subsequently sent a survey package via mail to complete. Patients who did not return mail packages were contacted via phone. Results: We included 188 patients in the final analysis. There was no statistical difference between the groups in regards to age (p = 0.77), sex (p = 0.075), BMI (p = 0.22), hospital stay (p = 0.86), laterality (p = 0.51), ASA score (p = 0.52), Kellgren Lawrence medial compartment OA score (p = 0.33) and Kellgren Lawrence lateral compartment OA score (p = 0.49). There was a statistically significant difference in favour of the control group (patella not resurfaced) with the KOOS JR score (p = 0.045). This difference was not observed with the Kujala score (p = 0.98) and the Oxford knee score (0.89). Conclusion: There might be a role in performing a patella resurfacing, even in newer total knee designs. We did not observe a clinically meaningful difference in PROMS between PR and non-PR TKA at medium-term follow-up. In addition, we did not observe any demographic factors that influenced the surgeon's decision to perform patella resurfacing. Further high-quality research is warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".