ArticleChinese medical journal2019
A modified technique for tibial bone sparing in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An investigation into the biomechanical effects of tibial vertical cutting errors on the proximal tibia after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and the improvement of cutting planes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Restoring coronal pre-arthritic alignment in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: mid- to long-term outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreviously, the authors modified the surgical technique to preserve tibial bone mass for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes and values of this modified technique.
methodsClinical data of 34 consecutive patients who underwent the unilateral modified UKA technique (modified group, 34 knees) were retrospectively analyzed. To compare the outcome, a match-paired control group (conventional group, 34 knees) of an equal number of patients using the conventional technique system in the same period were selected and matched with respect to diagnosis, age, pre-operative range of motion (ROM), and radiological grade of knee arthrosis. Clinical outcomes including knee Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, ROM, and complications were compared between the two groups. Post-operative radiographic assessments included hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), joint line change, implant position, and alignment.
resultsThe mean follow-up time was 38.2 ± 6.3 months. There was no difference in baseline between the two groups. The amount of proximal tibial bone cut in the modified group was significantly less than that of the conventional group (4.7 ± 1.1 mm vs. 6.7 ± 1.3 mm, t = 6.45, P < 0.001). Joint line was elevated by 2.1 ± 1.0 mm in the modified group compared with -0.5 ± 1.7 mm in the conventional group (t = -7.46, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups after UKA with respect to HSS score, VAS score, ROM, and HKA. Additionally, the accuracy of the post-operative implant position and alignment was similar in both groups. As for implant size, the tibial implant size in the modified group was larger than that in the conventional group (χ = 4.95, P = 0.035).
conclusionsThe modified technique for tibial bone sparing was comparable with the conventional technique in terms of clinical outcomes and radiographic assessments. It can preserve tibial bone mass and achieve a larger cement surface on the tibial side.
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.