Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29030653›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2018

Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure.

Lukas Ernstbrunner, Mohamed A Imam, Octavian Andronic, Tabea Perz, Karl Wieser, Sandro F Fucentese

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A review.World journal of orthopedics · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lukas ErnstbrunnerDepartment of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland. lukas.ernstbrunner@alumni.pmu.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4920-8518
Mohamed A ImamDepartment of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Octavian AndronicDepartment of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tabea PerzDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Karl WieserDepartment of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sandro F FucenteseDepartment of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrently, individual studies lack the power to successively illustrate different failure modes; therefore, we undertook a systematic review to examine lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (lat UKR) failure modes. Furthermore, we compared early with midterm and late failures and fixed-bearing with mobile-bearing implants.

methodsA search using the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and annual registries was performed to search for failed lat UKRs. Studies were included when they reported more than four failures, described failure modes and were minimum level IV studies. Data was analysed based on overall failure modes, fixed- vs. mobile bearing and early (<5 years) vs. midterm (5-10 years) vs. late failures (>10 years).

resultsFourteen cohort studies and two registry-based studies were included. A total of 336 overall failures, 87 time-dependent failures, and 175 implant-specific failures were identified. The main overall causes of failure were osteoarthritis (OA) progression (30%) and aseptic loosening (22%). These were followed by less common causes such as instability (7%), unexplained pain (5%), infection (5%), polyethylene wear (5%), and bearing dislocation (5%). Bearing dislocation was the most common early failure (29%) and also the most common failure among mobile-bearing implants (27%). In midterm and late failures, OA progression had the highest rates (59% and 78% respectively) and was also the most common type of failure in fixed-bearing implants (44%).

conclusionsProgression of OA and aseptic loosening are the major overall failure modes in lat UKR. Bearing dislocation was the main failure mode in early years and in mobile-bearing implants, whereas OA progression caused most failures in late years and in fixed-bearing implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review of minimum level IV studies.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeDisease ProgressionHumansKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureTreatment OutcomeArthroplastyKneeLateralUnicompartmental

Identifiers

PMID29030653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.