Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Combined to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Midterm Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A study was conducted to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of combined medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The hypothesis was that this procedure would lead to satisfying results in patients affected by medial osteoarthritis and ACL insufficiency. Fourteen patients with ACL deficiency and concomitant medial compartment symptomatic osteoarthritis were treated from 2006 to 2010. Twelve of them were followed-up for an average time of 7.8 year (range: 6–10 years). Assessment included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS), Oxford Knee score (OKS), American Knee Society scores (AKSS), Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) index of osteoarthritis, Tegner's activity level, objective examination including instrumented laxity test with KT-1000 arthrometer, and standard X-rays. KOOS score, OKS, WOMAC index, and the AKSS improved significantly at follow-up (p < 0.001). There was no clinical evidence of instability in any of the knees as evaluated with clinical and instrumented laxity testing (p < 0.001). No pathologic radiolucent lines were observed around the components. In one patient, a total knee prosthesis was implanted due to the progression of signs of osteoarthritis in the lateral compartment 3 years after primary surgery. UKR combined with ACL reconstruction is an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of combined medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis and ACL deficiency and confirms subjective and objective clinical improvement up to 8 years after surgery. This study reflects level IV evidence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".