Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement - A prospective, randomised controlled study of the Acrobot system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed a prospective, randomised controlled trial of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty comparing the performance of the Acrobot system with conventional surgery. A total of 27 patients (28 knees) awaiting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were randomly allocated to have the operation performed conventionally or with the assistance of the Acrobot. The primary outcome measurement was the angle of tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane, measured by CT. Other secondary parameters were evaluated and are reported.All of the Acrobot group had tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane within 2 degrees of the planned position, while only 40% of the conventional group achieved this level of accuracy. While the operations took longer, no adverse effects were noted, and there was a trend towards improvement in performance with increasing accuracy based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and American Knee Society scores at six weeks and three months. The Acrobot device allows the surgeon to reproduce a pre-operative plan more reliably than is possible using conventional techniques which may have clinical advantages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".