Rango de movilidad y resultados funcionales en tres diseños diferentes de artroplastia de rodilla primaria: Estudio Comparativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this comparative study was to analyze functional results and the range of motion of the knee between two groups of patients with total knee arthroplasty using high-flex prosthesis (in two group) and one group using conventional desing.Methods: 64 patients were surgically treated with total knee arthroplasty with Zimmer NexGen®, and 34 patients were surgically treated with high flexión Optetrack® artrhoplasty. After exclusion of patients, 22 patients (group A) were treated with high-flex design Zimmer, 21 patients (group B) were treated with a conventional implant, 25 patients (Group C) with high flex PS Optetrack® arthroplasty. Maximum flexion and extension were evaluated before and after surgery. Functional evaluation was performed with the Knee Society Score , the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index , and an analogous visual scale.Results: Mean post-surgical maximum flexion in group A increased from 99° to 113º with an average increase of 14º, in group B from 106° to 118º with an average gain of 12º, and in the group C from 110 to 111° with an avarege increase of 1°. Functional results assessed with KSS and WOMAC showed improvements in all three groups Conclusion: The funtional and radiographic outcomes were favorable in the three desings artrhoplasty. This study suggests that there are no significant differences in the final flexion, KSS score and the funtional womac socre between the first tow desings, however together are significant superior to the third group after one year of follow up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".