Efficacy analysis of short and mid-term effects of total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties in treating single compartmental osteoarthritis of knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the short and mid-term effect of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in treating single compartmental osteoarthritis of knee joint. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on the data of patients with osteoarthritis of knee single compartment treated in Kaiping Central Hospital from March 2013 to March 2015. Analysis was conducted on the cases of single compartmental osteoarthritis, patients with psychosocial or systemic lesions, or previous surgical history were excluded. Independent sample t test were used to analyze the pre- and post-operative Visual analogue score (VAS), Hospital of Special Surgery (HSS)score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities arthritis index(WOMAC), forgotten joint score(FJS) and range of knee joint motion. Results Twelve patients were finally recruited in the TKA group and UKA group, respectively. The postoperative indicators gradually improved compared with preoperative results in both groups, but the difference between the results of both groups at last follow-up were not significant(P>0.05). Joint forgetting score of UKA group (60.3±2.0) was significantly better than those of TKA group(58.1±3.8) at one year after surgery (t= 9.059, P 0.05). Conclusion Both UKA and TKA could relieve the patients’ symptoms and improve knee function in the treatment of single compartmental knee joint osteoarthritis, and the mid-term curative effects are basically identical. Key words: Arthroplasty; Knee; Osteoarthritis; Therapeutics
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".