MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410903392 · doi:10.3126/gmj.v4i1.79410

Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty and its effect on functional outcome: A retrospective study

2024· article· en· W4410903392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Chen, Zheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGrande Medical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeTotal knee arthroplastyRetrospective cohort studyMedicineArthroplastyOutcome (game theory)OrthodonticsSurgeryAnatomyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background This retrospective study was conducted to compare the coronal alignment of the lower extremity before and after surgery in patients undergoing total knee replacement by assessing the mechanical axis in the full-length weight-bearing radiograph taken preoperatively and post-operatively, and to assess the clinical outcome after TKA with reference to the mechanical axis. Method Fifty eight patients who underwent primary TKA from date October 2013 to March 2017 were included in the study. The patient’s demographics such as age, gender primary TKA were noted. All patients underwent clinical and radiological evaluation, including standardized radiographs (anterior-posterior long-leg X-ray). For clinical outcome scoring the Hospital for Special Surgery score (HSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were used. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the outcome of the surgery and the alignment (p <0.05). Result Out of the 58 patients included in the study, 16 (27.58%) were male and 42 (72.41%) were female with age ranged between 34 to 88 years (mean 65.44 years). The male patient’s age ranged from 53 to 85 (median 63 years) and that of female patients ranged from 52 to 83 (median 65.5 years). The overall mean HSS score improved from 59.86 ± 10.91 preoperatively to 82.52 ± 11.04 in one year postoperatively (<0.0001) and WOMAC score improved from 33.98 ± 11.25 to 10.4 ± 6.06 (P<0.0001) after 1 year from the TKA respectively. Both showed a significant difference in the results. There were 50 patients with pre-operative Varus alignment and 8 with pre-operative valgus alignment. Pre-operative Varus groups have a post-operative HSS score of83.98±9.962153 and that of pre-operative valgus groups has HSS score of 77.625±14.20199. Similarly, pre-operative Varus group had a postoperative WOMAC score of 9.38±5.27949 and that of the valgus group had 12±9.273618. In these two groups, there was no significant difference between their post-operative HSS score (P=0.2571) and WOMAC score (P=0.4590). After the surgery, 25 patients (43.10%) had varus alignment, 22 patients (37.9%) had neutral alignment and 11 patients (18.97%) had valgus alignment. The post-operative mechanical axis group was divided into the post-op varus group, post op neutral group, and post-op valgus group. After comparing within the groups, the neutral group had the highest HSS score (91.3636±4.1946, lowest WOMAC score (5.2272±1.37945), P<0.005, which showed the best result and the HSS score of post-operative varus group was (82.12±7.5), the WOMAC score was (9.64±4.344) showing the moderate result. The postoperative valgus group has HSS score (68.82 + 9.39), WOMAC score (16.3636 + 8.205), showing worst result. Conclusion Total Knee Arthroplasty is a good treatment modality for primary osteoarthritis. The coronal alignment before surgery has no significant effect on the function after total knee arthroplasty. However, the post-operative coronal alignment of the lower limbs was related to the clinical function of the patients. The outcome of the patient with the mechanical axis was the best with neutral groups followed by the Varus group and was the worst in the valgus group.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrande Medical JournalSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207