Comparative study of outcomes with total knee arthroplasty: medial pivot prosthesis vs posterior stabilized implant. Prospective randomized control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective procedure for pain relief and restoration of function in patients with symptomatic end-stage knee arthritis. Kinematic problems due to conventional implant design have been postulated. The objective of this study is to determine if there was any difference in postoperative ROM and outcomes between patients undergoing MP-TKA vs PS-TKA. METHODS: We prospectively colected the records of 600 consecutive patients with TKA performed by six senior orthopaedic surgeons between 2017 - 2021. We compared the ROM and patient-reported outcomes (Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index WOMAC, Oxford Knee Score OKS, Knee Society Score KSS, Forgotten Joint Score FJS) between MP TKA and PS TKA. RESULTS: There were no specific criteria for implant selection as the two groups were consecutive cohorts of patients and implant selection depended on surgeon preference. Demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis and severity of osteoarthritis were similar between MP and PS groups. The trend for OKS in our study is the same in both groups, but with higher mean values in the MP group. The trend of WOMAC pain, stiffness and disability score is the same in both groups, but with higher mean values in the PS group at one year and two years. KSS clinical and functional score is the same in both groups, but with higher mean values in the MP group. The most important score is forgetten joint score which is favourable for the MP group. CONCLUSION: The patients who underwent the MP-TKA scored better than those who underwent the PS-TKA, particularly regarding deep knee flexion and stability of the prosthesis. This may be related to better replication of natural knee kinematics with MP-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 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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".