Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32529388›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2020

Clinical outcome of bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for both medial and lateral femorotibial arthritis: a systematic review-is there proof of concept?

Keizo Wada, Andrew Price, Kirill Gromov, Sebastien Lustig, Anders Troelsen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

5 authors.

Keizo WadaDepartment of Orthopedics, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University Graduate School, 3-18-15 Kuramoto, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan. wadahank@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8779-1348
Andrew PriceNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kirill GromovDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sebastien LustigService de Chirurgie orthopédique, Centre Albert-Trillat, CHU de Lyon-Nord, Lyon, France.
Anders TroelsenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a well-accepted treatment for isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. In previous literature, it has been suggested that bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) which uses two UKA implants in both the medial and lateral compartments of the same knee is a feasible and viable option for the treatment of knee OA. Given the advantages of UKA treatment, it is warranted to review the literature of bi-UKA and discuss the evidence in terms of implant selection, indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes, respectively. MATERIALS AND

methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies presenting outcome of bi-UKA. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes using two unicompartmental prostheses for both medial and lateral femorotibial arthritis. Studies with the addition of patellofemoral arthroplasty or concomitant soft-tissue reconstruction and those not published in English were excluded.

resultsIn the early literature, the procedure of bi-UKA were performed for very severe OA and rheumatoid arthritis, but indications have evolved to reflect a more contemporary case-mix of knee OA patients. Both mobile and fixed bearing implants have been used, with the latter being the most frequent choice. A medial parapatellar approach for incision and arthrotomy has been the most frequently used technique. The present review found a promising clinical outcome of both simultaneous and staged bi-UKA although the number of long-term follow-up studies was limited.

conclusionsBoth simultaneous and staged bi-UKA has demonstrated good functional outcomes. However, the volume and level of evidence in general is low for studies captured in this review, and the data on long-term outcomes remain limited. The present review indicates that bi-UKA is a feasible and viable surgical option for bicompartmental femorotibial OA in carefully selected patients.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansKnee JointOsteoarthritis, KneeTreatment OutcomeArthroplastyBi-unicompartmental knee arthroplastyKneeOsteoarthritisUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID32529388

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.