Health-related quality of life after total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While previous research has demonstrated potential advantages of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly in terms of clinical outcomes such as function and pain relief, the specific impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to address this gap by comparing HRQOL outcomes between UKA and TKA, providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases up to July 15, 2023. Eligible studies assessed HRQOL using EQ-5D, SF-36, or SF-12 and were assessed for methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: . Follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 10 years. Five studies (63,829 patients) that evaluated HRQOL using EQ-5D showed significantly better outcomes for UKA compared to TKA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.02). Two studies (756 patients) that evaluated HRQOL using SF-36 showed no significant difference between TKA and UKA. Five studies (63,286 patients) that evaluated functional outcomes using Oxford Knee Score (OKS) showed significantly better functional scores for UKA compared to TKA (MD -1.29, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.72). Four studies (24,570 patients) that reported patient satisfaction showed no statistically significant difference between TKA and UKA (MD 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05). Further subgroup analysis did not affect the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that UKA is associated with better HRQOL and knee function, as well as similar patient satisfaction, compared to TKA for patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".