Patient‐specific versus off‐the‐shelf unicompartmental knee arthroplasty during level walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Personalised unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) improves tibial implant positioning and clinical outcomes compared to an off‐the‐shelf UKA. However, no biomechanical study has confirmed the functional superiority of custom implants. The study aimed to assess potential differences between personalised and off‐the‐shelf UKA in knee joint function in terms of both biomechanical and clinical outcomes during level walking. Methods Twenty‐two patients and 22 healthy individuals (control group [CG]), matched for age and height, were recruited. Eight patients were implanted with a Bodycad UKS (BUKS) prosthesis, and 14 patients with an Oxford UKA (OUKA) prosthesis. Participants walked barefoot along a 10 m walkway. To quantify 3D kinematics and kinetics, a 10‐camera motion analysis system and four force plates were used. The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) was utilised to measure knee function. 3D lower limbs angles and moments were estimated, and total support moment (TSM) was calculated. Biomechanical outcomes were compared along the gait cycle (GC) (0%–100%) between groups using statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Results The results showed higher KOOS total score for BUKS compared to OUKA ( p = 0.020, effect size [ES] = 0.62). No significant differences were observed between BUKS and OUKA for the biomechanical variables ( p > 0.05). Significant decrease of knee extension angle for OUKA compared to CG between 27% and 46% of GC ( p < 0.001) was observed. Knee moments showed a significant decrease for the external knee flexor moment for OUKA compared to CG between 55% and 76% of the stance phase (SP) ( p < 0.001). A reduction of the contribution of the knee to the first peak of TSM was observed for both BUKS and OUKA compared to CG ( p = 0.019, ES = 0.34). Conclusions BUKS patients demonstrated similar knee function compared to OUKA. OUKA group exhibited a protective mechanism by reducing the knee extension. Neither BUKS nor OUKA restored knee joint function comparable to a native knee, with compensation mechanism occurring through adjacent joints. Level of Evidence Level III.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".