Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32740877›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2021

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has higher revisions than total knee arthroplasty at long term follow-up: a registry study on 6453 prostheses.

A Di Martino, B Bordini, F Barile, C Ancarani, V Digennaro, C Faldini

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Di MartinoDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science - DIBINEM, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. albertocorrado.dimartino@ior.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0716-4951
B BordiniMedical Technology Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
F Barile1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
C AncaraniMedical Technology Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
V Digennaro1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
C FaldiniDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science - DIBINEM, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to analyse long-term unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) focusing on survivorship, causes of failure and revision strategy.

methodsThis study is a retrospective analysis of data from a regional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2000 and 2017. A total of 6453 UKAs were identified and the following information was analysed: demographic data, diagnosis leading to primary implant, survivorship, complication rate, causes of failure, revision strategies. UKA registry data were compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) registry data of 54,012 prostheses, which were implanted in the same time period.

results6453 UKAs were included in the study: the vast majority of them (84.4%) were implanted due to primary osteoarthritis followed by deformity (7.1%) and necrosis of the condyle (5.1%). When compared to TKA, UKA showed lower perioperative complication rate (0.3% compared to 0.6%) but higher revision rate (18.2% at 15 years, compared to 6.2% for TKA). No correlation was found between diagnosis leading to primary implant and prosthesis survival. The most frequent cause of failure was total aseptic loosening (37.4%), followed by pain without loosening (19.8%). Of the 620 UKAs requiring revision, 485 were revised with a TKA and 61 of them required a re-revision; on the other hand, of the 35 cases where another UKA was implanted, 16 required a re-revision.

conclusionUKA is associated with fewer perioperative complications but higher revision rates when compared to TKA. Its survivorship is not affected by the diagnosis leading to primary implant. Revision surgery of a failed UKA should be performed implanting a TKA, which is associated with a lower re-revision rate when compared to another UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeHumansProsthesis FailureRegistriesReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeArthroplasty registryModes of failureRegistry studyRevision rateTotal knee arthroplastyUnicompartmental knee arthroplastyUsage

Identifiers

PMID32740877
PMCPMC8458185
OpenAlexW3046321545

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.