Comparison of Highly Cross-Linked and Conventional Polyethylene During Simultaneous Bilateral Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been no long-term studies comparing the revision rates of a highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) bearing with those of a conventional polyethylene (CP) bearing among cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The aim of the current long-term study was to compare CR TKAs with HXLPE and CP bearings in terms of clinical, radiographic, and computed tomographic (CT) scan results; prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and implant survivorship. METHODS: This study enrolled a consecutive series of 410 Korean patients (mean age, 62.6 ± 8 years) who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKAs during the same anesthetic session. This study included 164 men and 246 women. Each patient underwent a posterior CR high-flexion TKA (NexGen CR-Flex TKA; Zimmer Biomet) with an HXLPE bearing on 1 side and a NexGen CR-Flex TKA with a CP bearing on the opposite side. The mean follow-up period was 17.5 years (range, 15 to 19 years). RESULTS: At the latest follow-up, there were no significant differences between the HXLPE and CP groups with regard to the Knee Society score (94 compared with 93 points), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (19.2 points for both groups), range of motion (125° compared with 126°), radiographic and CT results, or revision rate (2.0% compared with 2.2%). No knee showed osteolysis in either group. The estimated survival rate at 17.5 years, using revision or aseptic loosening as the end point, was 98.0% (95% confidence interval, 92% to 100%) for the group with the CR-Flex TKA with an HXLPE bearing and 97.8% (95% confidence interval, 92% to 100%) for the group with the CR-Flex TKA with a CP bearing. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this long-term study (minimum follow-up of 15 years) indicate that CR-Flex TKAs with HXLPE and CP bearings both yielded excellent clinical outcomes and implant survivorship. However, no significant clinical advantage was observed for HXLPE over CP bearings in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".