Joint distraction using a purpose-built device for knee osteoarthritis: A prospective 2-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Knee distraction treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis successfully postpones arthroplasty for years. Studies performed thus far used general intended use, patient-personalised or custom-made devices. In this study, for the first time, a device specifically designed for knee distraction is evaluated. Design 65 patients (≤65 years) with end-stage knee osteoarthritis indicated for arthroplasty received knee distraction. Before, 1-year and 2-year post-treatment, questionnaires were filled out and knee radiographs made. Adverse events and self-reported pain medication were registered. Results Forty-nine patients completed 2-year follow-up: one patient did not complete treatment, three patients received arthroplasty in the first and four patients in the second year follow-up. Eight patients were lost to follow-up in the second year. The total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score showed a clinically relevant improvement at 1 and 2 years (+26 and +24 points), as did all subscales (all p<0.001). The minimum radiographic joint space width improved over 1 (+0.5 mm; p<0.001) and 2 (+0.4 mm; p=0.015) years, as did the physical Short-Form 36 (+10 points; p<0.001). The most common adverse event was pin tract infection, experienced by 66% of patients, in 88% successfully treated with oral antibiotics. In two cases, hospitalisation and/or intravenous antibiotics were needed. Eight patients experienced device-related complications. None of the complications influenced 2-year outcomes. Before treatment, 42% of patients used pain medication, which had nearly been halved 1 (23%; p=0.02) and 2 years (29%; p=0.27) post-treatment. Conclusions Patients treated with a general applicable, for knee distraction purpose-built device showed, despite adverse events, significant clinical and structural improvement over 2 years. Trial registration number NL7986.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".