Excellent outcomes for lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Multicenter 268-case series at 5 to 23 years’ follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee (LCOA) is 10 times less frequent than medial compartment involvement. Long-term assessments of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in this indication are rare, with small series. HYPOTHESIS: Survival and functional outcome of lateral UKA in a large series are quite acceptable; the strategy is suited for isolated LCOA. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A multicenter retrospective study in 6 French health establishments included all lateral UKAs performed between January 1988 and September 2014. Clinical data (range of motion, International Knee Society (IKS) knee and function scores, satisfaction), paraclinical data (radiologic angles) and complications were prospectively entered in medical files during follow-up and analyzed retrospectively at end of follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period, 311 lateral UKAs were performed in 295 patients, using 5 fixed-bearing implant models. Twenty-eight patients died within 5 years, and 15 (4.8%) were lost to follow-up. The series thus comprised 268 lateral UKAs in 63 male and 205 female patients, with a mean age of 68.8±10.5 years, including 7 cases of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and 4 of aseptic osteonecrosis. Mean follow-up was 9.1 years (range, 5-23 years), implant survivorship with failure defined as all-cause revision surgery was 85.4% at 10 years and 79.4% at 20 years. At last follow-up, IKS knee score was 87.0 and IKS function score 80.2. Maximal flexion was 125°. 94.3% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied. The main cause of revision surgery was osteoarthritis in another knee compartment (66,7%, n=26). CONCLUSION: Lateral UKA showed good survivorship, comparable to medial UKA, with good functional results and excellent long-term satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".