Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30034817›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2018

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications, technical issues and results.

E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán, Primitivo Gómez-Cardero

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The effect of obesity on revision rate in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Mobile-bearing or Fixed-bearing?The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Unicompartmental knee arthroplastyWorld journal of orthopedics · 2024
    Article
  16. Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. [Research progress of failure and revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

E Carlos Rodríguez-MerchánDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPaz, Spain.
Primitivo Gómez-CarderoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPaz, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An age younger than 60 years, a body weight of 180 lb (82 kg) or more, performing heavy work, having chondrocalcinosis and having exposed bone in the patellofemoral (PF) joint are not contraindications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).Severe wear of the lateral facet of the PF joint with bone loss and grooving is a contraindication for UKA.Medial UKA should only be performed in cases of severe osteoarthritis (OA) as shown in pre-operative X-rays, with medial bone-on-bone contact and a medial/lateral ratio of < 20%.The post-operative results of UKA are generally good. Medium-term and long-term studies have reported acceptable results at 10 years, with implant survival greater than 95% for UKAs performed for medial OA or osteonecrosis and for lateral UKA, especially when fixed-bearing implants are used.When all implant-related re-operations are considered, the 10-year survival rate is 94%, and the 15-year survival rate is 91%.Aseptic loosening is the principal failure mechanism in the first few years in mobile-bearing implants, whereas OA progression causes most failures in later years in fixed-bearing implants.The overall complication rate and the comprehensive re-operation rate are comparable in both mobile bearings and fixed bearings.The survival likelihood of the all-polyethylene UKA implant is similar to that of metal-backed modular designs for UKA.Notable cost savings of approximately 50% can be achieved with an outpatient UKA surgery protocol. Outpatient surgery for UKA is efficacious and safe, with satisfactory clinical results thus far. Cite this article:

Indexed as

arthroplastykneeunicompartmental

Identifiers

PMID30034817
PMCPMC6026888
OpenAlexW2805928720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.