MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412558396 · doi:10.1111/os.70049

Comparison of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Versus High Tibial Osteotomy for Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: An Updated Meta‐Analysis of 56,000 Patients

2025· review· en· W4412558396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
KeywordsMedicineUnicompartmental knee arthroplastyHigh tibial osteotomyOsteoarthritisConfidence intervalCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRange of motionSurgeryArthroplastyRelative riskFunnel plotPhysical therapyPublication biasInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent degenerative joint disease primarily affecting hip and knee joints, with an estimated 300 million cases globally. This study is crucial as it provides an updated, comprehensive comparison of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for treating medial knee osteoarthritis, offering valuable insights into their relative effectiveness. The findings aim to inform clinical decision‐making and improve patient outcomes by identifying the superior treatment option. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar until August 1, 2024. Statistical analysis used Review Manager 5.4 with a random‐effects model, risk ratio (RR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment, and funnel plots were used to analyze publication bias. GRADE assessment was done to gauge the certainty of the evidence. Thirty‐nine studies, involving a total of 56,686 patients, were evaluated for comparison. UKA significantly reduced the complications (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: [0.25, 0.54]; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 30%), revision rates to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.99]; p = 0.05; I 2 = 72%) and postoperative pain (MD = −0.33; 95% CI: [−0.64, −0.03]; p = 0.03; I 2 = 89%) compared to HTO, while range of motion (ROM) (RR = −3.55; 95% CI: [−7.16, 0.52]; p = 0.09; I 2 = 98%) and walking speed (MD = 0.02; 95% CI: [−0.04, 0.07]; p = 0.56; I 2 = 0%) and surgical site infections(RR = 1.40; 95% CI: [0.30, 6.53]; p = 0.67; I 2 = 86%) were comparable. All the functional knee scores are comparable except the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, which is increased in UKA (MD = 2.63; 95% CI: [0.52, 4.74]; p = 0.01; I 2 = 76%). UKA is superior to HTO, offering lower revision rates, reduced postoperative pain, fewer complications, and better functional scores.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.011
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it