A Comparison of Mobile- and Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties in the Treatment of Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 1,861 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have compared mobile-bearing (MB) and fixed-bearing (FB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) in patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA). The present systematic review and meta-analysis examined the differences in the clinical and radiological outcomes of MB UKA and FB UKA. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared MB UKA and FB UKA were included. The weighted mean difference in the knee scores and range of motion (ROM) as well as the summary odds ratio of postoperative mechanical axis alignment, radiolucency, revision rate, and complications were calculated in the MB UKA and FB UKA groups. Finally, 2 RCTs and 11 cohort studies that involved 1,861 patients (1,996 knees) were included. The FB UKA group showed better postoperative Knee Society score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and ROM than the MB UKA group. However, the MB UKA group had more knees with a neutral limb alignment and a lower incidence of polyethylene wear than the FB UKA group. No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to radiolucency, revision rate, and complications, such as arthritis progression, aseptic loosening, and postoperative pain. This meta-analysis has demonstrated that both prostheses provided excellent clinical outcomes and survivorship in patients with unicompartmental knee OA. The MB UKA group achieved the expected postoperative neutral limb alignment as compared with the FB UKA group, while the FB UKA group showed higher knee scores and superior ROM than the MB UKA group. Limited evidence is currently available; therefore, the results of our meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".