MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413338660 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70337

Efficacy of isolated femoral revision in cruciate‐retaining total knee arthroplasty instability: A comparative study

2025· article· en· W4413338660 on OpenAlex
Lars-René Tuecking, Mats Tobias Wormit, Henning Windhagen, Max Ettinger, Peter Savov

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantOsteoarthritisOrthopedic surgeryPerioperativeArthroplastySurgeryVisual analogue scaleStatistical significanceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose This study compares clinical outcomes, implant survival rates and perioperative factors between isolated femoral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revision (prTKA) and full TKA revision (frTKA) for flexion instability in cruciate‐retaining (CR) prostheses. Methods This retrospective, controlled case series included 66 consecutive patients treated with either full TKA revision ( n = 34) or isolated femoral TKA revision ( n = 32) with flexion instability after CR TKA between 2015 and 2021. To ensure that the groups were uniformly comparable, only patients with one implant system (Triathlon, Stryker) were included. Preoperative demographic data and radiological parameters (e.g., quantification of anteroposterior instability and midflexion instability) were compared between the groups. Postoperative evaluation of implant survival and clinical outcome scores was performed with a minimum follow‐up of 2 years. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM) analysis included the Visual Analogue Scale, Kujala, Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, University of California at Los Angeles Activity‐Level Scale and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome scores. Statistical evaluations included unpaired, nonparametric t ‐tests and Wilcoxon tests for nominal data. Implant survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan–Meier analysis and log‐rank test. Statistical significance was defined as a p ‐value < 0.05. Results No significant differences were found in the clinical outcomes between the prTKA and frTKA groups across various PROMs. Implant survival rates were comparable (96.9% for prTKA vs. 97.1% for frTKA). Compared to frTKA, prTKA resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays ( p = 0.002), reduced operative time ( p < 0.001), lower blood loss ( p = 0.001) and a decreased inflammatory response ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Partial femoral TKA revision for flexion instability in cruciate‐retaining prostheses yielded clinical outcomes and implant survival rates comparable to full TKA revision in the short‐ to mid‐term follow‐up. These findings suggest that partial femoral revision may be a viable option for carefully selected patients with flexion instability, offering similar clinical efficacy and potential perioperative advantages over complete revision. 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.316 · 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