MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413764626 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70347

Patient‐specific versus off‐the‐shelf unicompartmental knee arthroplasty during level walking

2025· article· en· W4413764626 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnicompartmental knee arthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryArthroplastyOff the shelfMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryOsteoarthritisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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