Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30535643›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019

Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis.

Filippo Migliorini, Markus Tingart, Marc Niewiera, Björn Rath, Jörg Eschweiler

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. No difference in mobile and fixed bearing partial knee arthroplasty in octogenarians: a clinical trial.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1221
Markus TingartDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Marc NiewieraDepartment of General Surgery, Eifelklinik St. Brigida, Simmerath, Germany.
Björn RathDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn the last couple of years, a significant amount of studies comparing the UKA and TKA for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis have been published. However, there is a lack of recent meta-analysis comparing the two implants. Since the number of performed UKAs is currently increasing and the indications are obsolete, it becomes important to update current evidences and outcomes. With these premises, a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing UKA versus TKA was conducted.

methodsIn October 2018, the following databases were accessed: Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar. According to the Oxford Center of Evidence-based Medicine, level of evidence articles I to III were included. Only studies reporting quantitative data concerning the outcomes of interest were included. For the statistical analysis and the methodological quality assessment, we referred to the Review Manager Software 5.3. Dichotomous data were analyzed through the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method with the odd ratio effect measure. For continuous data, the inverse variance statistical method was used with the mean difference effect measure. A confidence interval of 95% was considered for analysis. To evaluate study heterogeneity, both Chi-square and Higgins tests were performed. Values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

resultsThe overall methodological quality assessment was moderate. The risk of publication's bias was moderate. We enrolled in this study a total of 13,789 patients. The mean follow-up was 42.69 months. The UKA evidenced increased risk of revision's surgeries (OR 2.16, P > 0.0001). All the other scores of interest were in favor of the UKA: Oxford Knee Score, KSS Clinical, WOMAC overall and related subscales. The UKA also reported better functional outcomes: KSS Function, longer walking distance, improvement of the joint flexion and ROM. Moreover, in the UKA group have been reported a shorter length of stay, reduced estimated total blood loss and shorter surgical duration.

conclusionThe main findings of this meta-analysis are that UKA reported a reduced survivorship but better clinical and functional performances compared to TKA. Furthermore, shorter surgical duration, lower total estimated blood loss and quicker hospitalization length were observed in the UKA cohort.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBlood Loss, SurgicalClinical Trials as TopicHumansLength of StayOperative TimeOsteoarthritis, KneePatient Outcome AssessmentRange of Motion, ArticularOsteoarthritisSurvivorshipTKATotal knee arthroplastyUKAUnicompartimental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID30535643
OpenAlexW2905524663

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.