Medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty should be reserved for patients with complete joint space collapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether preoperative radiologic joint space width (JSW) is related to the outcome of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) (primary hypothesis). METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was performed. One group was comprised of UKA patients with preoperative JSW 0-1 mm. Another group was made up of patients with preoperative JSW ≥ 2 mm (range 0-4 mm). The JSW was measured from preoperative weight-bearing Schuss-view radiographs. The clinical outcome was determined with the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index score preoperatively and 1 year after medial UKA. Implant survival data were obtained from the arthroplasty register of Tyrol. RESULTS: There were 80 patients with a preoperative JSW 0-1 mm (age 66, BMI 27.8) and 70 patients with a preoperative JSW ≥ 2 mm (age 64, IQR 15, BMI 28.1). WOMAC total was 10 ± 10 in patients with 0-1 mm JSW and 25 ± 47 in patients with ≥ 2 mm JSW at 1 year postoperative (p = 0.052). WOMAC pain at 1 year postoperative was 7 ± 16 in patients with 0-1 mm JSW and 18 ± 46 in patients with ≥ 2 mm JSW (p = 0.047). WOMAC function at 1 year postoperative was 10 ± 9 in patients with 0-1 mm JSW and 17 ± 51 in patients with ≥ 2 mm JSW (p = 0.048). In patients with 0-1 mm JSW 5 year prosthesis survival was 92.3% and in patients with ≥ 2 mm JSW, it was 81.1% (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preoperative complete joint space collapse (0-1 mm JSW), clinical outcome was superior to that of patients with incomplete joint space collapse. This was true for both 1 year postoperative WOMAC pain and WOMAC function and for 5 year implant survival rates. On the basis of our findings, it is recommended that 'complete joint space collapse' especially be used to achieve best clinical outcome in medial UKA surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".