Comparison of Functional Outcomes of Two Knee Arthroplasty Techniques (Total Knee Arthroplasty and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty) for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis, simultaneously done in the Same Patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of functional outcomes between Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) and Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) in patients diagnosed with bilateral knee osteoarthritis. Both procedures were performed simultaneously on separate knees to evaluate their respective efficacy. Methods: The study included 25 patients (18 women and 7 men) with a mean age of 59.6 years, all meeting the criteria for administering UKA on one knee and TKA on the other. Radiographic and clinical data were collected over a two-year period, with assessments conducted at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Data included age, gender, and body mass index, medical history, surgical procedures, and various scores and measurements related to knee function. Results: The UKA group exhibited significant improvements in functional scores compared to the TKA group. Specifically, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score for the UKA knee was 24.5% higher than that of the TKA knee, indicating better functional outcomes. Radiographically, the tibio-femoral angle was more than two times greater in the UKA method, while the Varus angle was significantly greater in the TKA method. No post-operative complications were reported. Conclusion: This study underscored the safety and efficacy of both UKA and TKA procedures in the treatment of bilateral knee osteoarthritis. UKA demonstrated superior functional outcomes, while TKA displayed distinct advantages in radiographic alignment. Individual patient characteristics and preferences should guide the selection of the most appropriate surgical approach.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".