The positive impact of robotic‐assisted BCR TKA on post‐operative joint line restoration, lateral posterior condylar offset and standard and advanced activity in the 2011 Knee Society Score than the conventional jig‐based technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to compare post‐operative short‐term patient‐reported outcome measurements (PROMs) between robotic‐assisted (RA) and the conventional jig‐based technique using bi‐cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR TKA). Methods This retrospective single‐surgeon consecutive cohort analysis compares 33 RA‐BCR TKA patients (Robot group) to 32 conventional TKA patients (Conventional group). Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), femoral and tibial component rotational alignment, distal and posterior femoral osteotomy (mm) were compared between the two groups using three‐dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) measurements. 2011 Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Forgotten Joint Score and Patella score were collected more than 1 year after surgery. Results Pre‐operative knee scores were significantly higher in the Robot group (mean: 20.5) than in the Conventional group (mean: 16.8), while functional scores were significantly lower in the Robot group (mean: 57.7) than in the Conventional group (mean: 69.6). The Robot group showed significantly greater improvements in post‐operative extension angle (p < 0.01), and standard and advanced activity in the 2011 KSS (p < 0.01). LDFA, MPTA and rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components showed no significant difference between the two groups. Medial distal femoral osteotomy (mm) was significantly greater in the Conventional group (p < 0.01). Lateral posterior femoral osteotomy (mm) was significantly greater in the Robot group (p < 0.01). The robotic group had significantly more cases of joint line restoration and reduced lateral posterior condylar offset than the Conventional group. Conclusions RA‐BCR TKA improved post‐operative extension angle and standard and advanced activity in the 2011 KSS more than the Conventional TKA. 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".