MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416438983 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70559

No clinically meaningful differences between PCL preservation and sacrifice in medial pivot total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2025· article· en· W4416438983 on OpenAlex
Amir Mohsen Khorrami, Mohammad Rastegar, Mehdi Mohammadpour, Mohammad Ayati Firoozabadi, Seyed Mohammad Javad Mortazavi

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
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryTotal knee replacementSports medicineMEDLINESacrifice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose The decision to preserve or sacrifice the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) during medial pivot total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated postoperative functional outcomes and complications in patients undergoing medial pivot TKA with and without PCL preservation. Methods Eight databases were systematically searched eight databases through July 2025 following PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing PCL preservation (cruciate‐retaining [CR]) versus sacrifice (cruciate‐sacrificing [CS]) in medial pivot TKA with minimum 2‐year follow‐up were included. Primary outcomes were functional scores and complication rates. Due to substantial heterogeneity ( I 2 > 75%) in key outcomes, we emphasized qualitative synthesis over pooled estimates for affected outcomes. Statistical analysis employed random‐effects models with prediction intervals for highly heterogeneous outcomes. Results Seven cohort studies (957 patients) were included. For outcomes with acceptable heterogeneity, quantitative pooling showed no statistically significant differences: Knee Society Score (KSS) (mean difference: 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.5, 1.27, I 2 = 60.4%) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) (mean difference: 0.77, 95% CI: −0.25, 1.79, I 2 = 23%). However, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score and range of motion demonstrated extremely high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 89.6%–99.4%), precluding reliable pooled estimates. Qualitative synthesis of individual studies consistently showed no clinically meaningful differences between approaches, it is important to note that the extremely high heterogeneity for most functional outcomes severely limits the reliability of these conclusions and prevents definitive recommendations. Complication rates were similar between groups (9% CS vs. 6% CR, p = 0.57, I 2 = 21%). Conclusions Based on low to moderate certainty evidence with significant study heterogeneity, PCL management strategy does not result in clinically meaningful differences in functional outcomes or complication rates in medial pivot 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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · 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