Biomechanical and clinical assessments of activities of daily living following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is an effective treatment for isolated medial or lateral knee osteoarthritis. Evaluating knee joint loading during activities of daily living postoperatively can offer valuable insights about the compensatory mechanisms in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients. The aim of this scoping review was to summarize and to synthesize the existing literature on the most performed activities of daily living and their associated biomechanical outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Five databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Ergonomics Abstracts were searched based on 3 main concepts: unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, activities of daily living and biomechanical outcomes. Studies were screened based on titles and abstracts, followed by a full text reading conducted by two authors following inclusion and exclusion criteria. FINDINGS: This scoping review included 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria and focusing on activities of daily living. These activities were categorized into three main subgroups 1) Stair negotiation, 2) Higher degree of knee flexion activities (including squat, lunge and sit-to-stand) and 3) other activities of daily living (including balance, incline and decline walking). INTERPRETATION: Stair negotiation was the most evaluated task followed by squatting with a main focus on reporting knee joint kinematics and kinetics. The majority of studies did not report the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures combined with motion analysis outcomes. Furthermore, most studies focused primarily on medial knee arthroplasty with a fixed-bearing design in short-term follow-up which warrants caution when generalizing these findings to all types of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".