Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Versus Opening-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy for Spontaneous Osteonecrosis of the Knee: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are treatment options for patients with medial spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SONK). Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes after UKA and HTO in patients with SONK. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This retrospective study included 42 patients who had undergone Oxford UKA and 40 patients who had undergone opening-wedge HTO between 2014 and 2020. All patients were diagnosed with isolated medial SONK without subchondral collapse of the femoral condyle and tibial plateau. The patients were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated using the Lysholm knee scoring system, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and a numeric rating scale assessing patient satisfaction. Results: Patients in the UKA group were significantly older than those in the HTO group (median age, 71.5 years [IQR, 68.0-76.5 years] vs 65.0 years [IQR, 60.0-70.0 years], respectively; P < .001). The median follow-up time was 3.78 years (IQR, 2.45-4.53 years) for the UKA group and 3.87 years (IQR, 2.90-5.60 years) for the HTO group. Significant improvements in functional scores were observed in both the UKA and HTO groups ( P < .001 for all), with no significant between-group differences in scores at the final follow-up (≥2 years after surgery). The satisfaction rate was similar (80.95% for UKA and 75.0% for HTO). Conclusion: According to the study results, significant improvements in clinical outcomes were seen after opening-wedge HTO with microfracture for a younger group of patients with SONK without subchondral collapse, while Oxford UKA had a comparable effect on an older group of patients. Both UKA and HTO were found to be viable surgical approaches for SONK at short- to midterm 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".