ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020
Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demographics and outcomes of unicondylar knee arthroplasty in Türkiye: a nationwide retrospective database study of eight thousand, five hundred and ninety cases.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Associations between hospital characteristics, volume, and reasons for revision: a cohort study of 48,029 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties with 3,397 revisions from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes following mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with varying degrees of perioperative alignment change.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Wear patterns of compartments in varus knee osteoarthritis among an asian population: A cross-sectional study with radiographic and intraoperative analysis.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- [Patellofemoral joint replacement: onlay or inlay?]Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging provides additional utility in the preoperative cartilage assessment of patients undergoing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- Learning from the past-A substantial number of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions are potentially avoidable: A radiographic analysis of 98 cases.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Varus/valgus angle of the femoral component relative to the tibial component increases risk of bearing dislocation in medial mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- The effect of body mass index on the outcomes of cementless medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Large Reduction in Postoperative Posterior Tibial Slope Risks Anterior Collapse of the Tibial Component in Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Impact of keel saw blade design and thickness on the incidence of tibial plateau fracture and tibial implant-loosening in cementless medial UKR.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- 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
- Low percentage of surgeons meet the minimum recommended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty usage thresholds: Analysis of 3037 Surgeons from Three National Joint Registries.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- The effect of age on the outcomes of cementless mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Perioperative varus alignment does not affect short-term patient-reported outcome measures following mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Observational
- Article
- [New technologies (robotics, "custom-made") for unicondylar knee arthroplasty-contra].Der Orthopade · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to understand why the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in the National Joint Registry (NJR) is so high. Using radiographs, the appropriateness of patient selection for primary surgery, surgical technique, and indications for revision were determined. In addition, the alignment of the radiographs was assessed.
methodsOxford UKR registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 and subsequently revised were identified by the NJR. A blinded review was undertaken of pre-primary, post-primary, and pre-revision anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of a sample of 107 cases from multiple centres.
resultsThe recommended indications were satisfied in 70%, with 29% not demonstrating bone-on-bone arthritis. Major technical errors, likely leading to revision, were seen in 6%. Pre-revision radiographs were malaligned and, therefore, difficult to interpret in 53%. No reason for revision was seen in 67%. Reasons for revision included lateral compartment arthritis (10%), tibial loosening (7%), bearing dislocation (7%), infection (6%), femoral loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2%, one femoral, one tibial).
conclusionsOnly 20% of the revised UKR were implanted for the recommended indications, using appropriate surgical technique and had a mechanical problem necessitating revision. One-third of primary surgeries were undertaken in patients with early arthritis, which is contraindicated. Two-thirds were presumably revised for unexplained pain, which is not advised as it tends not to help the pain. This study suggests that variable and inappropriate indications for primary and revision surgery are responsible for the high rates of revision seen in registries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Therapeutic study.
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.