Understanding the impact of physical activity level and sports participation on implant integrity and failure in patients following unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Recommendations discouraging high levels of physical activity and sports following unicompartmental (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been questioned in recent years. This scoping review aimed to summarize the literature examining the impact of physical activity level and sports participation on implant integrity and failure in patients following UKA and TKA. Methods: Five databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL, ProQuest) were searched up to April 17, 2024. Retrospective, prospective and cross-sectional studies were included if they assessed the impact of physical activity level and/or sports participation (exposure variables) on implant integrity and/or failure (outcome variables) at ≥1 year following UKA or TKA. Two authors independently conducted abstract/full text reviews and data charting. Extracted data were summarized using descriptive analysis. Results: Of 2014 potential records, 20 studies (UKA: n = 6 studies, 2387 patients/TKA: n = 14 studies, 7114 patients) met inclusion criteria. Following both UKA & TKA, most patients regularly participated in light to moderate physical activities and lower impact sports (e.g. walking, cycling, golf). No studies reported a deleterious effect of physical activity level or sports participation on implant integrity or failure post UKA (mean follow-up: 3.3-10.3 years). Three studies reported an association between greater levels of physical activity with increased risk of implant failure post TKA (mean follow-up: 1-11.4 years). Conclusions: No studies demonstrated an association between greater levels of physical activity and sports participation with increased implant wear or failure post UKA, whereas results were mixed following TKA. There is a need for large, prospective cohort studies with long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".