ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2017
Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017Pooled it
- Comparison of cementless twin-peg, cemented twin-peg and cemented single-peg femoral component migration after medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a 5-year randomized RSA study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Trial
- Learning from the past-A substantial number of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions are potentially avoidable: A radiographic analysis of 98 cases.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Classification approaches used to grade radiographic patellofemoral osteoarthritis: A scoping review.Osteoarthritis imaging · 2025Article
- Clinical and Functional Results of Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty with a Minimum Follow Up of 5 Years-A Consecutive Cohort of 201 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Pre-operative predictive factors of residual varus on the mechanical axis after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2021Review
- Regional five-year clinical outcomes of 289 consecutive cementless oxford uni-compartmental knee replacements at a non-inventor centre.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- [Multivariate analysis of varus after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2021Article
- [Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].Der Orthopade · 2021Review
- Return to Sport Activity in the Elderly Patients after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Long-termBone & joint research · 2019Article
- Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications, technical issues and results.EFORT open reviews · 2018Article
- Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017Article
- Results after Cementless Medial Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement - Incidence of Radiolucent Lines.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCementless unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) was introduced to address some of the problems that can occur following cemented UKR. The aim of this study was to report the 5-year experience of the first 512 medial cementless Oxford UKR implanted by two surgeons for the recommended indications.
methodsThe first consecutive 512 cementless Phase 3 Oxford UKRs implanted by two surgeons for the recommended indications between June 2004 and October 2013 were prospectively identified and followed up independently. All the procedures were carried out through a minimally invasive approach without eversion or dislocation of the patella. Patients were assessed clinically pre-operatively and at 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 years after surgery with functional outcome scores and radiographs.
resultsThere were eight reoperations of which six were revisions giving a 5-year survival of 98 % (95 % CI 94-100 %). At a mean follow-up of 3.4 years (1.0-10.2), the mean OKS was 43 (SD 7), AKSS (objective) was 81 (SD 13), and AKSS (functional) was 86 (SD 17). The first 120 cases had a minimum follow-up of 5 years (mean 5.9; range 5-10.2). In these patients, the mean OKS was 41 (SD 8), AKSS (objective) was 81 (SD 14), and AKSS (functional) was 82 (SD 18). There were no femoral radiolucencies and no complete tibial radiolucencies. 11 % of tibial components had partial radiolucent lines; the remaining 89 % had no radiolucencies.
conclusionThe clinical results are as good as or better than those previously reported for cemented fixation. The radiographic results are better with secure bony attachment to the implants in every case. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26611902What 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.