Mid-Term Evaluation of the Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with BMI of 40 or Greater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Limited evidence is available on mid-term follow-up for patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 receiving a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The primary objective of this study was to investigate survival of the UKA in patients with BMI ≥ 40. Secondary objectives were to assess functional and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Survival analysis with endpoint revision of any component for any reason was conducted using Kaplan–Meier technique on 121 knees (103 patients) that underwent UKA with Oxford Phase 3 implant (Oxford Knee, Biomet, Swindon, United Kingdom) between September 2001 and March 2014 by seven surgeons. Survivorship differences were compared using Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) tests, and Cox Proportional Hazard Model was used to assess predictors of failure. Preoperative PROMs were compared at 2 and 5 years postoperatively using paired t-tests. Mean age of patients was 58 years (43–75), mean BMI 43 kg/m2 (40–51), and mean follow-up 7 years (2 months to 15 years). Survival rate for the whole cohort was 92% at 2 years and 86% at 5 years. Females had a significantly higher revision rate than males (p = 0.043). A total of 19 knees required revision (16 to TKA, 2 polyethylene liner exchanges, and 1 femoral component and liner revision). With respect to PROMs, there was a significant improvement at 2 and 5 years (p < 0.001) on 4 of 5 knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score subscales. The mid-term survival rate for the Oxford UKA in patients with morbid obesity is similar to that of other nondesigner patient series with BMI ≥ 30, which provides further evidence for the safety of the implant in this patient population with significant improvements on PROMs at short and mid-term follow-up.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".