Sentence examples for revision outcomes from inspiring English sources

These findings illustrate where MARS MRI has the ability to identify muscle atrophy in patients before clinical deterio¬ration adversely affects revision outcomes.

We support reports suggesting that isolated patella addition in the non-resurfaced knee is associated with poor clinical outcomes and high rates of re-revision (Berry and Rand 1993, Leopold et al. 2003, Muoneke et al. 2003, Khatod et al. 2004), although this is the first study to compare primary and revision outcomes of patella resurfacing.

The outcome of the primary prosthesis and the subsequent revision outcome are equally important to determine the best solution in young patients.

Among studies of other non-revision outcomes, Andrew et al 21 looked at the change in Oxford Hip Score 5 years after THR and found no difference between non-obese, obese and morbidly obese patients, but in a smaller study 22 using Harris Hip Score (HHS) with the same length of follow-up, an increase in BMI was associated with a small but significant reduction in HHS.

Comparisons between pre-revision outcome and post-revision outcome are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the difference.

Pre-revision and post-revision outcome measures at the most recent follow-up were retrospectively collected from the patients' records.

Pre-revision and post-revision outcome measures were compared using paired 2-tailed t-test for continuous parameters and 2-tailed McNemar test for categorical parameters.

If the clinical status at the time of revision was compared to the last available post-revision outcome (average follow-up time 2.74 years) the correlation for hip pain (r=0.25; p<0.001), hip flexion (r=0.52; p<0.001) and walking capacity (r=0.44; p<0.001) slightly increased.

Inspired by the economy principle employed in belief revision, the outcome in merging should keep as much as information as possible from each individual belief base \(K_i\).

This study compared the primary or revision TKA outcome of procedures where patella components matched to their femoral counterparts were inserted, with procedures using patella and femoral components that were unmatched.

Use of revision as outcome factor does, however, allow comparison of results for subgroups of patients with arthroplasties of the same joint.