Does total knee arthroplasty converted from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar efficacy to primary total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) converted from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and primary TKA. Methods Randomized controlled trails and non-randomized controlled trails comparing TKA converted from UKA with primary TKA were searched in Wanfang Data, CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Springer, EMbase, and Ovid from 2010 to now. RevMan 5.2 software was used to conduct this meta-analysis. Results Six retrospective studies [mean Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) score: 7] were eligible for this meta-analysis. There were 238 patients in the revision group, and 358 patients in the primary TKA group. The meta-analysis showed that the revision group had significantly higher re-revision rate than primary TKA (RR=3.30, 95% CI: 1.09~10.06, P=0.04), but there was no difference in the knee function score [MD=-4.92, 95% CI (-4.36, 14.19), P=0.30], range of motion (MD=-5.58, 95% CI: -12.62~1.45, P=0.12), infection rate (MD=0.55, 95% CI: 0.17~1.77, P=0.32), or blood loss (MD=96.03, 95% CI: -155.27~347.32, P=0.45) between the two groups. Conclusion TKA converted from UKA can achieve the same effect as primary TKA in the short term, but is associated with a higher re-revision rate. Key words: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Revision; Primary total knee arthroplasty; Meta-analysis
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".