[Comparison of efficacies for two surgical methods in the treatment of medial tibial-femoral osteoarthritis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacies of two surgical methods in the treatment of medial tibial-femoral osteoarthritis. METHODS: Between October 2007 and June 2010, a total of 22 cases (25 knees) with severe osteoarthritis in medial tibial-femoral compartment underwent minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with Sled prosthesis after arthroscopic procedure. And its clinical efficacy was compared with that of 22 cases (25 knees) undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with Gemini MKII prosthesis almost simultaneously. RESULTS: There were no significant difference in general data between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Compared with the TKA group, the UKA group had a smaller blood loss ((148 ± 26) vs (278 ± 36) ml), a shorter operative duration ((68 ± 12) vs (86 ± 12) min), a faster progress of resuming 90° flexion ((3.18 ± 1.8) vs (9.1 ± 2.2) d) and an earlier off-bed time (P < 0.05). All patients were followed up for 6 - 34 months. There was no significant difference in KSS (Knee Society Score), function score or WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) score between 2 groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The treatment of medial tibial-femoral osteoarthritis with minimally invasive UKA is superior to that with TKA in that it is less invasive, there is a faster recovery of joint functions and no significant difference exists in the mid-term clinical efficacies between them.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".