Mid-Term Clinical Outcome and Reconstruction of Posterior Tibial Slope after UKA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has gained growing popularity over the last decades. The posterior tibial slope (PTS) has been shown to play a significant role for knee biomechanics and is thought to be crucial for clinical function of the UKA. We evaluated the clinical outcome at mid-term follow-up after UKA. Furthermore, the reconstruction of the individual PTS was analyzed. A total of 91 consecutive patients undergoing medial UKA for osteoarthritis were included. Patients were contacted by telephone for a survival analysis at a minimum of 30 months after surgery. Patient-oriented questionnaires and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were obtained. A retrospective chart review and radiological analysis of component alignment were performed for all patients before and at 6 weeks after surgery. Of 91 patients (93 knees) undergoing UKA, 69 patients (70 knees) were available for clinical follow-up after a mean of 56.0 (range 31–81) months post-surgery. The clinical results of the examined patients in the present study showed mean subscale scores of the KOOS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index between 71 and 91%. Overall 7 of 91 patients were revised during the course of follow-up period and underwent total knee arthroplasty. A Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a survival rate for UKA of 90.5% after 48 months. Calculated implant survival was 75.9 months (95% confidence interval 72.3–79.6) at the mean. The radiographic analysis of pre- and postoperative PTS showed no differences (p = 0.113).UKA for osteoarthritis of the medial knee compartment shows encouraging clinical results at mid-term follow-up. The individual PTS could be reconstructed within acceptable ranges. This is a retrospective therapeutic study with Level IV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".