Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32052120›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020

Lifetime revision risk for medial unicompartmental knee replacement is lower than expected.

J A Kennedy, E Burn, H R Mohammad, S J Mellon, A Judge, D W Murray

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Comparison of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the treatment of severe medial compartment osteoarthritis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2021
    Article
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

6 authors.

J A KennedyNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. james.kennedy@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2330-9743
E BurnNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
H R MohammadNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
S J MellonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
A JudgeNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
D W MurrayNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUnicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is widely considered to be a pre-total knee replacement (TKR) particularly in the young. The implication of this is that it is sensible to do a UKR, even though it will be revised at some stage, as it will delay the need for a TKR. The chance of a UKR being revised during a patient's life time has not previously been calculated. The aim of this study was to estimate this lifetime revision risks for patients of different ages undergoing UKR.

methodsCalculations were based on data from a designer series of 1000 medial Oxford UKR with mean 10-year follow up. These UKR were implanted for the recommended indications using the recommended surgical technique. Parametric survival models were developed for patients of different ages based on observed data, and were extrapolated using a Markov model to estimate lifetime revision risk.

resultsThe estimated lifetime revision risk reduced with increasing age at surgery. Lifetime revision risk at age 55 was 15% (95% CI 12-19), at 65 it was 11% (8-13), at 75 it was 7% (5-9), and at 85 it was 4% (3-5).

conclusionProvided UKR is used appropriately, the lifetime revision risk is markedly lower than expected. UKR should be considered to be a definitive knee replacement rather than a Pre-TKR even in the young. These lifetime estimates, alongside established benefits for UKR in speed of recovery, morbidity, mortality and function, can be discussed with appropriate patients when considering whether to implant a UKR or TKR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

ReoperationAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee ProsthesisMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneeProsthesis FailureArthroplastyComplicationsLifetime revision riskUnicompartmental knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID32052120
PMCPMC7669797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.