Evaluation of postoperative range of motion and functional outcomes after cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized high-flexion total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative range of motion and functional outcomes among patients who received high-flexion total knee arthroplasty using cruciate-retaining (CR-Flex) and posterior-stabilized (PS-Flex) type prostheses.\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 127 patients (186 knees) who underwent high-flexion total knee arthroplasty between 2005 and 2007, 92 knees were placed in the CR-Flex group, and 94 knees were placed in the PS-Flex group. After two years of postoperative follow-up, clinical and radiographic data were reviewed. Postoperative non-weight-bearing range of knee motion, angle of flexion contracture and functional outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) functional sub-scale were assessed and compared between the two groups.\n\nRESULTS: After the 2-year postoperative period, the mean range of motion was 131째 in the CR-Flex group and 133째 in the PS-Flex group. There were no significant differences in postoperative range of motion between the two groups. Only age at operation and preoperative range of motion were significantly associated with postoperative range of motion after high-flexion total knee arthroplasty. Postoperative functional outcomes based on the WOMAC functional sub-scale were slightly better in the CR-Flex group (9.2짹9.1 points) than in the PS-Flex group (11.9짹9.6 points); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=non-significant).\n\nCONCLUSION: The retention or substitution of the posterior cruciate ligament does not affect postoperative range of motion (ROM) or functional outcomes, according to 2 years of postoperative follow-up of high-flexion total knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".