Early outcomes of the Tahoe Unicondylar Knee System: A prospective multicentric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: The Tahoe Unicondylar Knee System (TUKS) includes several designs features with the aim to achieve enhanced anatomic conformity and optimal knee biomechanics through a minimally invasive, bone-sparing surgical approach. This study aimed to evaluate the early clinical and radiographic results of the TUKS implant in patients undergoing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Methods: This prospective, multicentric study analyzed the clinicoradiographic data of 104 UKAs performed in patients with severe medial knee osteoarthritis. Pre- and postoperative Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS) and Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score were compared in all patients. Coronal femoral component angle (cFCA), sagittal femoral component angle (sFCA), coronal tibial component angle (cTCA), tibial slope angle (TSA), and femorotibial angle (FTA) were analyzed on postoperative knee radiographs. Results: The mean preoperative KSKS, KSFS, and WOMAC scores significantly improved ( P < 0.0001) at a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The mean postoperative cFCA, sFCA, cTCA, TSA, and FTA were within acceptable limits. Two (2%) knees had a postoperative tibial fracture which occurred within 3 months of UKA surgery and which required conversion to TKA with long stem tibial components. Conclusions: This early outcome study indicates that the TUKS can be a promising option for patients undergoing medial UKA with excellent short-term functional recovery and radiographic outcomes. However, long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm implant survivorship, outcomes, and complication rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".