Functional Outcome and Range of Motion of High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although the design features of the high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prostheses reportedly improve the range of knee motion, a clinical comparison of both systems with regard to range of motion has not been reported, to our knowledge. The purpose of the present study was to compare the range ofmotion and functional outcome in knees receiving either a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining or a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prosthesis. Methods: Two hundred and fifty patients (mean age, 71.6 years) received a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Ten patients were men, and 240 were women. At the time of each follow-up (minimum duration of follow-up, two years; mean, 2.3 years), the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with use of the knee-rating systems of the Knee Society and the Hospital for Special Surgery. In addition, each patient completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire. Non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing ranges of knee motion were determined in both groups. Results: The mean postoperative Knee Society knee score was 94 points for the knees treated with a high-flexion cruciate-retaining prosthesis and 95 points for those treated with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. The mean postoperative Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 90 points for the knees that had been treated with a
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".