Outcomes and complications of inlay versus onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes and complications rates between inlay and onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA). METHODS: According to the PRISMA statement, 42 studies with 2552 patients were included. Data considered for quantitative analysis consisted of the Knee Society Score (KSS), the range of motion (ROM), the visual analogue score (VAS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities questionnaire (WOMAC). Complications and revision surgery were considered. RESULTS: Data on postoperative KSS showed no differences between the groups. The ROM was evaluated in 8 studies for 70 and 331 inlay and onlay PFA, respectively. Onlay group was favorable in terms of postoperative ROM. Postoperative VAS was available for 64 inlay and 110 onlay and no differences were found. Data on postoperative WOMAC were available for 49 inlay and 527 onlay PFA and inlay group showed better scores. A statistically significant higher rate of instability, persistent pain, malposition, stiffness, deep infection, disease progression, and wear of the patellar component were noted in the inlay group. A higher rate of lateral release was noted in the onlay group. A higher number of manipulations under anesthesia was noted in the inlay group. The revision to total knee arthroplasty was reported more frequently in the inlay group. CONCLUSION: A higher rate of conversion to total knee arthroplasty and complication rates after inlay technique was found. The potential of achieving better WOMAC scores with the inlay technique should be weighed against the higher complication and revision rates compared to the onlay technique. 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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".