A BMI above 30 results in satisfying outcomes in patients undergoing fixed‐bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of BMI on clinical outcomes of cemented fixed-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) on a 2- to 12-year follow-up. METHODS: Between January 2010 and January 2020, a total of 103 lateral UKAs were implanted. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index for pain, stiffness, function, and total score were administered to estimate patients' overall health status pre- and post-operatively. Results were considered good or excellent for WOMAC values > 85 points and OKS > 40 points. Survivorship, described with Kaplan-Meier method, was defined as the lack of revision at the latest follow-up. Complications or further operations were recorded. p values of < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred one lateral UKAs were assessed at a mean follow-up of 77.8 months. No patients underwent revision, but 2 patients (2, 0%) developed aseptic loosening of the implant 2 and 5 years after surgery but for clinical reasons neither undergo revision (5-year survivor 97.2%). Overall satisfaction was generally high, with excellent scores in all WOMAC subscales and OKS for all BMI groups. Considering the pain subscale (WOMAC pain), patients with normal weight and overweight achieve excellent results more frequently [10 (25.64%) vs 10 (23.81%) p = 0.026] than obese patients (n = 0); on the other hand, considering the quality of life (WOMAC QoL), obese patients most frequently reach excellent values, even statistically significant [n = 15 (75.00%) p = 0.040]. CONCLUSION: had satisfactory patient-reported outcome measures compared to non-obese patients on a long term with survival rates comparable to medial UKA. Obese patients should not be excluded from the benefit of lateral UKA surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".