Bicompartmental knee arthroplasty of the patellofemoral and medial compartments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have shown that after total knee arthroplasty neither normal biomechanics nor function is obtained. Selective resurfacing of diseased compartments could be a solution. A narrative review of the available literature on bicompartmental arthroplasty is presented. METHODS: A literature review of all peer reviewed published articles on bicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee was performed. Bicompartmental arthroplasty is by definition the replacement of the tibiofemoral and the patellofemoral joint. It can be performed with a modular unlinked or a monolithic femoral component. RESULTS: Bicompartmental arthroplasty performed with modular components obtains good to excellent results at ± 10 years follow-up. Function and biomechanics are superior to total knee arthroplasty. Modern monolithic femoral components are reported to give early failure and high revision rates and should be avoided. CONCLUSION: Modular bicompartmental arthroplasty is an excellent alternative to treat bicompartmental arthritis of the knee leading to good functional results and superior biomechanics in well-selected patients. Caution is needed since only a few peer reviewed articles with small series and old implant designs are available on this type of arthritis treatment. Survivorship in these studies is inferior to total knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".