Comparable joint awareness and implant survival at midterm follow‐up between CR and PS TKA: An anatomic phenotype‐based propensity score‐matched analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Recent studies highlight the role of joint awareness and the influence of preoperative anatomy on outcomes of cruciate‐retaining (CR) versus posterior‐stabilized (PS) implants in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There is currently a lack of studies comparing CR and PS prostheses while adjusting for important anatomical parameters and anatomical phenotypes with large group sizes. Methods This retrospective single‐centre study analyzed patients who underwent primary TKA with the Triathlon® CR or PS implant system from 2008 to 2014 with a minimum follow‐up of 6.5 years. Patients were matched using propensity scores based on demographics (age, gender and body mass index) and preoperative anatomic angle parameters (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibia angle, hip–knee–ankle angle [HKA], arithmetic HKA and joint line obliquity) and Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) types. Outcome data included patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs: Forgotten Joint Score, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, visual analogue scale and University of California at Los Angeles), demographic data, post‐operative clinical course data. Statistical analysis was conducted using R, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results A total of 728 patients (513 CR and 215 PS) were included, leaving 519 patients (346 CR and 173 PS) being analyzed after propensity score matching. Joint awareness and further clinical scores showed no differences between CR and PS implants (p > 0.05). Implant survival at 5 and 10 years was similar for both types (log‐rank test: p = 0.164 and p = 0.163), though CR implants had lower survival rates overall. Valgus CPAK types III and VI showed the lowest survival rates, especially for CR implants. Regression analysis revealed younger patient age significantly affected CR implant survival, while increasing valgus LDFA decreased PS implant survival. Conclusion No differences were found in the joint awareness of CR and PS prostheses in the medium to long‐term follow‐up, while controlling for preoperative anatomy. Similarly, there were no significant variations in implant survival. Noticeably higher revision rates in the valgus CPAK phenotypes were found for both systems. A high valgus LDFA angle was identified as a risk factor for revisions in PS systems. Level of Evidence Level III.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".