Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31094840›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2019

No Differences in Outcomes Scores or Survivorship of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Between Patients Younger or Older than 55 Years of Age at Minimum 10-Year Followup.

Merrill Lee, Jerry Chen, Chia Shi Lu, Ngai Nung Lo, Seng Jin Yeo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Impact of age on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. [Short-term effectiveness of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years of age].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Excellent survival and outcomes with fixed-bearing medial UKA in young patients (≤ 60 years) at minimum 10-year follow-up.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020
    Article
  13. CORR® International-Asia-Pacific: Adding Another String to Your Bow.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Merrill LeeM. Lee, J. Chen, C. S. Lu, N. N. Lo, S. J. Yeo Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore J. Chen Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
Jerry Chen
Chia Shi Lu
Ngai Nung Lo
Seng Jin Yeo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough patients who have undergone unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) report improvements in functional outcomes, orthopaedic surgeons tend to avoid UKA in younger patients due to implant survivorship concerns. As a result, few studies specifically have examined the outcomes of patients 55 years and younger. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a difference between two cohorts of patients: those 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older who underwent UKA in terms of: (1) functional outcomes scores, (2) quality-of-life scores, and (3) implant survivorship free from all-cause revision.

methodsBetween 2004 and 2007, 100 patients 55 years and younger underwent UKA at one institution. Of those, three (3%) died, and 13 (13%) were lost to followup before the 10-year minimum required for this study, leaving 84 patients available for propensity score matching. During that same period, 343 patients older than 56 years underwent UKA; 48 (14%) died, and 59 (17%) were lost to followup before 10 years, leaving 236 patients available in that group for potential inclusion. After propensity score matching to account for confounding preoperative variables (surgeon, patient's body mass index, and sex), the patients were divided into two groups based on age: (1) 55 years and younger, (2) 56 years and older. There were 71 patients in each group, with minimum followup of 10 years. The mean age in the group of patients 55 years and younger was 52 years (range, 45-55 years) and that of the older patients was 64 years (range, 56-80 years). The mean (range) followup in both groups was 13 years (range, 11-15 years). Patient functional outcomes, quality of life scores, and implant survivorship were assessed for both groups of patients. To detect a minimum clinically important difference of 5 points in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), a sample size of at least 68 patients in each group would be required to achieve a power of 0.95.

resultsWith the numbers available, there were no differences between patients 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older in terms of OKS (18 ± 6 versus 20 ± 8, mean difference -1.8; 95% CI, -4.1 to 0.5; p = 0.133) and Knee Society Knee Score (84 ± 16 versus 79 ± 21, mean difference 4.7; 95% CI, -1.8 to 11.2; p = 0.157) at 10 years postoperatively. With the numbers available, there were no differences between patients 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older in terms of the physical component summary (PCS) (47 ± 10 versus 48 ± 11, mean difference -0.4; 95% CI, -4.0 to 3.2; p = 0.827) and the mental component summary (MCS) (52 ± 12 versus 51 ± 12, mean difference 1.4; 95% CI, -2.6 to 5.4; p = 0.491) of the SF-36 at 10 years postoperatively. Finally, we found no differences with the numbers available between patients 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older in terms of survivorship free from all-cause revision at a minimum of 10 years followup (both groups had the same 10-year revision-free rate of 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

conclusionsBecause we found few differences between patients 55 years and younger and those older than that in terms of functional outcomes, quality of life, and implant survivorship after UKA, we believe that appropriately selected younger patients should not be excluded from the potential benefits of undergoing UKA, especially in the hands of high-volume surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

SurvivorshipAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeDisability EvaluationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionReoperation

Identifiers

PMID31094840
PMCPMC6554132

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.