PREVALENCE OF TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT AND ITS SATISFACTION AMONG PATIENTS IN MEDINA, SAUDI ARABIA,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recently, the rate of the Total Knee Replacement (TKR) has been steadily increasing due to its effectiveness in improving patients’ functioning and quality of life, also in reducing the pain. Nevertheless, there are limited population-based data on the frequency and outcomes of total knee replacement. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiologic characteristics and adverse events of patients submitted to TKR so as to conclude the most common indications and risk factors of the surgery. Method: retrospective cohort study had been carried out in King Fahad Hospital in Madinah and Madinah National Hospital, on 65 patients (Male and Female) who already performed total knee replacement and had been interviewed using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results: Majority of the patients were females as 53 (81.5%) while only 12 (18.5%) were males. Out of these numbers, nearly all patients (98.5%) had Osteoarthritis with 93.8% underwent TKR and 50.8% done on the bilateral knee, while one-third of them were distributed on both sides. Majority of them complained about swelling 37 (56.9%) as a post-operative complication. (WOMAC) score revealed a mean of 82.8 with a range from 40.5 to 99.2. More than half of them were satisfied with the surgical operation. This project also has indicated a positive relationship between post-operative complication such as stiffness and move limitation against satisfaction toward surgical operation. Conclusion: Based on our findings even after post-operative complication, most patients were satisfied with the procedure. Therefore, after the operation, surgeons need to remind patients to do a regular visit for a post-operative check-up. Keywords: Total knee replacement, WOMAC, Osteoarthritis, Surgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".