Taux de survie et complications d'une prothèse de genou charnière rotatoire avec cône morse spécifique, résultats précoces : une étude de cohorte rétrospective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: indications for rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty concerns both primary and revision surgeries. Despite technological advances since the 1950s, TKA hinge exhibits a high complication rate. This study aims to evaluate the early radiological survival and clinical results of a new rotating hinge with a minimum two-year post-operative follow-up, and to record the occurrence of complications specific to the implant and its design.Methods: a retrospective study was carried out on 26 patients (25 knees) two years post-operatively after the implantation of a TKA hinge (MULTIGEN PLUS®) from LIMA®. 88.5% were indications for prosthesis revision. Follow-up radiographs were taken at each follow-up visit to track loosening and specific implant-related complications. The Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected retrospectively and at the last follow-up visit.Results: results show an implant survival of 73% at 2 years, with 7 loosenings leading to revision surgery. Significant improvement in WOMAC and OKS scores. No implant-specific complications were observed. Conclusion: the results indicate an appropriate hinge design but suffering from poor survival inprosthesis revision for infection cases. The clinical results are good despite the comorbidfactors of the study population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".