ReviewThe open orthopaedics journal2017
Midterm Results of Cementless and Cemented Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty with Mobile Meniscal Bearing: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Review in The open orthopaedics journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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 versus cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Knee-specific bone quality assessment for cementless total knee arthroplasty candidate selection: a narrative review.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Review
- No association between different in tibial resection level and clinical outcomes six months after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- No Clinical or Radiographic Differences Between Cemented Cobalt-Chromium and Titanium-Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2021Review
- Early tibial component loosening of medial UKA after severe medial plateau SONK-report of three cases.Journal of surgical case reports · 2021Article
- Midterm Results of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Case Series.The open orthopaedics journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) yields good clinical outcome but common revision reasons are loosening and pain. Cementless UKA may reduce the revision rate.
objectiveThe current study was designed to assess clinical and radiographic outcome of cemented and cementless UKA, using bone quality as determined by the Bone Hardness Test (BHT) as selection criterion for cementless implantation.
methodsIn this prospective comparative cohort study we analyzed 50 cementless and 29 Oxford consecutive UKA cases. Patients with sufficient bone quality were eligible for cementless UKA. Bone quality was assessed with the BHT, which consisted of exercising pressure with the thumb on the bone surface created after resection of the tibia.
resultsThe average surgical times were 62.5 ± 12.6 and 78 ± 16 minutes in the cementless and the cemented group, respectively (p < 0.01). The average thickness of the polyethylene insert was 4.3 ± 1.2 (range, 3 - 9) and 3.7 ± 0.8 (range, 3 - 6) mm, respectively (p = 0.02). Both types of implants yielded excellent clinical and functional results. At an average follow-up time of seven years, we found non-significant differences between clinical results of cementless versus cemented implants.
conclusionShorter surgical time makes cementless implantation more attractive to surgeons when considering UKA options for their patients. The average thickness of the polyethylene insert in cementless group was 0.6 mm thinner than in the cemented group. The BHT is a simple and useful test to assess whether patients are eligible for cementless UKA.
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.