ArticleActa orthopaedica2020
Comparison of the 10-year outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cementless versus cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Comparable incidence of periprosthetic tibial fractures in cementless and cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Pooled it
- Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021Pooled it
- 'Wear advantage' of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a myth: Higher volumetric wear without reduced revision rates compared to the fixed-bearing design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Three dimensional printing in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current evidence and future directions.International orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Article
- Biomechanical risk factors for tibial plateau fracture following Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a finite element analysis under gait loading.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Surgical factors that contribute to tibial periprosthetic fracture after cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Fractures in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty are associated with a decreased medial keel-cortex distance of the tibial implant.Knee surgery & related research · 2024Article
- The effect of fixation type on periprosthetic fractures in high-risk patients who have osteoporosis undergoing total joint arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- [Research progress on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
- Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Review
- Undersizing of the tibial component in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) increases the risk of periprosthetic fractures.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Advantages of Simultaneous Cementless Bilateral Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Staged Surgery.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Assessing lateral femoral condyle cartilage prior to medial UKA: MRI vs. Valgus stress radiograph.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Hybrid fixation of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty shows equivalent short-term implant survivorship and clinical scores compared to standard fixation techniques.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Medium term results of the cementless Oxford mobile bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- A matched comparison of cementless unicompartmental and total knee replacement outcomes based on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.Acta orthopaedica · 2022Article
- Optimized medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcome: learning from 20 years of propensity score matched registry data.Acta orthopaedica · 2022Article
- Short distance from the keel to the posterior tibial cortex is associated with fracture after cementless Oxford UKA in Asian patients.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total replacement but has higher revision rates, particularly for aseptic loosening. The cementless Oxford UKR was introduced to address this. We undertook a registry-based matched comparison of cementless and cemented UKRs.Patients and methods - From 40,552 Oxford UKRs identified by the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man (NJR) we propensity score matched, based on patient, surgical, and implant factors, 7,407 cemented and 7,407 cementless UKRs (total = 14,814).Results - The 10-year cumulative implant survival rates for cementless and cemented UKRs was 93% (95% CI 90-96) and 90% (CI 88-92) respectively, with this difference being significant (HR 0.76; p = 0.002). The risk of revision for aseptic loosening was less than half (p < 0.001) in the cementless (0.42%) compared with the cemented group (1.00%), and the risk of revision also decreased for unexplained pain (to 0.46% from 0.74%; p = 0.03) and lysis (to 0.04% from 0.15%; p = 0.03). However, the risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture increased significantly (p = 0.01) in the cementless (0.26%) compared with the cemented group (0.09%). 10-year patient survival rates were similar (HR 1.2; p = 0.1).Interpretation - The cementless UKR has improved 10-year implant survival compared with the cemented UKR, independent of patient, implant, and surgical factors. This improved survival in the cementless group was primarily the result of lower revision rate for aseptic loosening, unexplained pain, and lysis, suggesting the fixation of the cementless was superior. However, there was a small increased risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture with the cementless implant.
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.