MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406144461 · doi:10.2340/17453674.2024.42574

Evaluation and refinement of thresholds for early migration of total knee replacements as an estimator of late aseptic loosening: an updated systematic review of RSA and survival studies

2025· review· en· W4406144461 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Puijk, Jiwanjot Singh, Rowan H Puijk, Elise Laende, José W M Plevier, Peter A. Nolte, Bart G. Pijls

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFixation (population genetics)ProsthesisAseptic processingSurgeryOrthodonticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study updates 2 parallel systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2012, which established the 1-year radiostereometric (RSA) migration thresholds for tibial components of total knee replacements (TKR) based on the risk of late revision for aseptic loosening from survival studies. The primary aim of this study was to determine the (mis)categorization rate of the 2012 thresholds using the updated review as a validation dataset. Secondary aims were evaluation of 6-month migration, mean continuous (1- to 2-year) migration, and fixation-specific thresholds for tibial component migration. METHODS: One review comprised early migration data, measured by maximum total point motion (MTPM), from RSA studies, while the other focused on revision rates for aseptic loosening of tibial components from survival studies. Studies were matched based on prosthesis, fixation (i.e., cemented and uncemented, and uncemented with screw fixation), and insert (PFI). For the primary aim, newly included study group combinations were compared with the 2012 RSA thresholds to determine the (mis)categorization rate. For the secondary aims, new thresholds were determined based on revision rates for any reason in national registries (5-year < 3%, 10-year < 5%, 15-year < 6.5%). RESULTS: After matching studies on PFI, a total of 157 survival and 82 RSA studies were included, comprising 504 study group combinations, 51 different PFIs, and 186,974 TKRs. We found that the 2012 thresholds were valid, with a misclassification rate of 0.5% at 5 and 0.3% at 10 years. Mean continuous migration could not be used to identify safe or unsafe implants. For cemented TKR, the 6-month mean MTPM was acceptable below 0.30 mm and unacceptable above 1.10 mm. For uncemented TKR, it was acceptable below 1.10 mm and unacceptable above 1.55 mm. CONCLUSION: The updated data reaffirm the 2012 RSA thresholds, confirming their validity in estimating revision risks for tibial component aseptic loosening. The newly proposed fixation-specific 6-month migration thresholds were found to be reliable for early identification of unsafe TKR designs, while 1- to 2-year mean continuous migration data were found not to be reliable for this purpose. These findings support and refine the migration thresholds to improve the evidence-based introduction of new TKR systems.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.198
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.198
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.018
Bibliometrics0.0180.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrthopaedicaSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207