Unicondylar knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in adults with isolated medial osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice between unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is likely to have long-term implications for patient-reported health outcomes. However, high-quality studies that compare the outcomes of TKA and UKA and their effects are still lacking in the literature. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the UKA and TKA techniques with regard to functional outcomes and perioperative complications in patients who had isolated medial osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, matched-controlled study performed with approval of our hospital (Kunshan hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine affiliated to Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), with the ethics number KZY2020-37. To reduce the effect of selection bias and potential confounding in this observational study, a 1:1 matching algorithm was applied. The groups were split by sex, age to within 6 years, and body mass index within 5 kg/m. Thus, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 240 consecutively enrolled patients who underwent UKA and 240 patients who underwent TKA from January 2013 to June 2015 from the database of our institution. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the trial. Clinical outcomes included range of motion, Short Form 12 score, new Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, and the complications. The outcome measures were evaluated by a physiotherapist and were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months and 2 years. The mean follow-up time was 3 years. CONCLUSION: We hypothesized that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5828).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".