Comparison of pain perception between open and minimally invasive surgery in total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biagio Moretti, Elsa Vitale , Antonio Esposito, Antonio Colella, Maria Cassano, Angela NotarnicolaDepartment of Clinical Methodology and Surgical Techniques, Orthopedics Section, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery of University of Bari, General Hospital, Bari, ItalyAbstract: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was a well-established procedure that had shown excellent long-term results in terms of reduced pain and increased mobility. Pain was one of the most important outcome measures that contributed to patient dissatisfaction after TKA. After a computerized search of the Medline and Embase databases, we considered articles from January 1st, 1997 to October 31st, 2009 that underlined the impact on patient pain perception of either standard open total knee arthroplasty or minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. We included articles that used the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Score, Hospital for Special Surgery Score (HSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) as postoperative pain indicators, and we included studies with a minimum follow-up period of two months. We excluded studies that monitored only functional postoperative knee activities. It was shown that TKA with the open technique was a better treatment for knees with a positive effect on pain and function than the minimally invasive technique.Keywords: total knee arthroplasty, open technique, minimally invasive surgery total knee arthroplasty, pain perception, pain evaluation
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".