Elimination of Preoperative Flexion Contracture as a Contraindication for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for the management of unicondylar osteoarthritis. Historical contraindications limit patients' eligibility for UKA. However, recent reports have suggested that some contraindications may not be absolute. This study evaluates preoperative flexion contracture with regard to UKA. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of 53 patients with preoperative flexion contracture between 11° and 20° who underwent fixed-bearing UKA and a matched cohort of 53 patients who underwent cruciate-retaining TKA. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the average flexion contracture was 13.8° in the UKA group and 14.1° in the TKA group (P = 0.42). Mean preoperative motion was greater in the patients treated with UKA (106°) than in those treated with TKA (97°; P < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients who underwent UKA had greater motion than patients who underwent TKA had (121° versus 113°; P < 0.01). Residual flexion contracture was greater in the UKA group (4.1°) than in the TKA group (2.1°; P = 0.02). The two groups demonstrated similar improvements in Knee Society clinical scores (P = 0.32). However, patients treated with UKA demonstrated higher Knee Society functional scores, compared with patients treated with TKA (86 versus 75; P = 0.03). DISCUSSION: Although residual flexion contracture was worse after UKA, this group had similar clinical improvement, greater postoperative motion, and greater function scores, compared with the matched TKA group. Preoperative flexion contracture >5° may not be an absolute contraindication to UKA. CONCLUSION: The contraindications to UKA regarding flexion contracture may not be as absolute as previously thought. Larger, prospective studies are needed to generalize these findings to a wider population.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".