ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2016
High rate of implant loosening for uncemented resurfacing-type medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy of Oxford unicondylar replacement for the treatment of spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee versus medial knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2021Review
- Morphologic difference and size mismatch in the medial and lateral tibial condyles exist with respect to gender for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Korean population.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the medium-term implant survivorship, the clinical results and the failure mechanisms of a novel unicompartmental arthroplasty for uncemented resurfacing of the medial tibio-femoral compartment.
methodsSeventy-six consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated with a mean final follow-up of 6 years (SD 5.3 months). In 44 patients, the diagnosis was osteoarthritis, and in 32 patients, it was avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle. The Hospital for Special Surgery Score was used for objective clinical evaluation, and a self-administered visual analogue scale was used to quantify residual pain at each observation point. Implant survivorship was determined assuming revision for any reason as endpoint.
resultsNineteen patients were revised (6 with osteoarthritis and 13 with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle). The mean interval time from index surgery to revision was 11.2 months (SD 4.66 months). Implant survivorship was higher in patients with osteoarthritis with respect to those with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle (p = 0.018). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent failure mechanism. Femoral component loosening was reported in five patients and tibial component loosening was reported in other six patients. Assuming revision for any reason as endpoint, an implant survivorship of 74.3 % at 6-year follow-up was determined. In the remaining 57 patients, satisfactory clinical results were obtained. Hospital for Special Surgery Score and visual analogue scale for residual pain showed significant improvements (p < 0.03 and p < 0.045, respectively).
conclusionsAt the present time, the standard cemented implants and the conventional designs for unicompartmental knee replacement still represent the optimal solution. The authors do not recommend the widespread use of this technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.