Estudio Comparativo con prótesis total de rodilla de alta flexión
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractBackground: The purpose of this comparative study is 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 one group) and with a conventional implant (in the other).Methods: Sixty-four patients were surgically treated with total knee arthroplasty with Zimmer NexGen®, USA. From this series, 22 patients (group A) were treated with high-flex design. Two cases with rheumatoid arthritis were excluded. Forty-two patients were treated with a conventional implant, 21 of them were excluded, and group B included 21 patients. Maximum flexion and extension were evaluated before and after surgery. Functional evaluation was performed with the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), and an analogous visual scale.Results: The mean pre-surgical maximum flexion was 99° in group A and 106º in group B. Mean post-surgical maximum flexion in group A increased to 114º with an average increase of 15º and, in group B, to 118º with an average gain of 12º. There were no significant statistical differences (p <0.05). Pre-surgical KSS in group A was 36/48 and increased to 90/92. In group B, pre-surgical KSS was 46/49 and 94/90 after surgery.Conclusion: This study suggests that there are no significant differences in the range of motion, functional results, and radiographic evaluation in a high-flex total knee arthroplasty and a conventional design 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".