Comparison of Single Knee Arthroplasty and Bilateral Knee Arthroplasty in Haemophiliacs During a Single Operation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty is the standard treatment for end-stage haemophilic knee arthritis; however, the choice between single knee arthroplasty (SKA) and bilateral knee arthroplasty (BKA) in a single operation remains controversial due to the risks specific to haemophiliacs. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted searches across CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, with the last search performed on 15 October 2024. Study results include joint function, complication and various cost. Literature quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcomes were evaluated with fixed-effects or random-effects models, while heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. RESULTS: Nine studies involving 309 haemophilia patients were included, with 166 in SKA group and 143 in BKA group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the SKA and BKA groups in range of motion (95% CI: -0.22 [-3.57, 3.13], p = 0.90), Hospital for Special Surgery score (95% CI: -2.13 [-4.89, 0.64], p = 0.13), flexion degree (95% CI: -2.38 [-7.22, 2.46], p = 0.33), cost (95% CI: -0.24 [-0.94, 0.45], p = 0.49), complication rate (95% CI: 1.31 [-0.79, 2.17], p = 0.29), hospital stay (95% CI: 0.25 [-2.06, 2.57], p = 0.83), and coagulation factor usage (p = 0.49). However, The SKA group outperformed the BKA group in terms of operative time, postoperative drainage, and transfusion volume (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that, apart from differences in operative time, transfusion volume, and blood loss, SKA and BKA show no significant differences in postoperative joint function, complication rates, or costs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".