Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cementless perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) with those already reported in a similar study on cemented UKA. DESIGN: A case-series cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax. PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients who underwent a total of 57 UKAs between May 1989 and May 1997. Inclusion criteria were osteoarthritis involving the predominantly the medial compartment of the knee, relative sparing of the other compartments, less than 15 degrees of varus, minimal knee instability, and attendance at the postoperative clinical visit. INTERVENTION: Cementless UKA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical parameters that included pain, range of motion and the Knee Society Clinical Knee Score. Roentgenographic parameters that included alpha, beta, gamma and sigma angles and the presence of periprosthetic radiolucency or loose beads. RESULTS: Age, weight, gender and follow-up interval did not significantly affect the clinical results in terms of pain, range of motion or knee score. Knees with more than 1 mm of radiolucency had significantly lower knee scores than those with no radiolucency. Knees that radiologically had loose beads also had significantly lower knee scores. The clinical outcomes of cementless UKA were comparable to those already reported on cemented UKA. Cementless femurs had less radiolucency than the cemented femurs, whereas cementless tibias had more radiolucency than their cemented counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Cementless UKA seems to be as efficacious as cemented UKA. However, there is some concern about the amount of radiolucency in the cementless tibial components. A randomized clinical trial comparing both cementless and cemented tibial components with a cementless femur (hybrid knee) is needed to further assess this controversial issue in UKA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".