Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32867858›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery & related research2020

Unicompartmental vs. segmental bicompartmental vs. total knee replacement: comparison of clinical outcomes.

Oday Al-Dadah, Georgina Hawes, Philip J Chapman-Sheath, John William Tice, David S Barrett

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery & related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Oday Al-DadahTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK. odayaldadah@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1940-836X
Georgina HawesDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK.
Philip J Chapman-SheathDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK.
John William TiceDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK.
David S BarrettDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK.
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBSouth Tyneside District Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCombined medial tibiofemoral and symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis is not amenable to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Total knee replacement (TKR) is an invasive option in younger adults with high functional demands. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of patients who have undergone UKR, bicompartmental knee replacement (BKR) and TKR up to 2 years post-operatively. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective study comprised 133 subjects including 30 patients in the medial UKR group, 53 patients in the BKR group (combined medial UKR with patellofemoral joint replacement) and 50 patients in the TKR group. All subjects were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Patients in each group were assessed using both scoring systems pre-operatively and 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operatively.

resultsSignificant improvement of OKS was found at 6 months compared to baseline for UKR (22.7 to 38.1, p = 0.046), BKR (22.6 to 36.8, p < 0.001) and TKR (16.6 to 34.5, p < 0.001). Significant improvement was also found for the WOMAC sub-scores for all three groups during this time period. After 6 months, there was no further statistically significant improvement in either outcome score in any of the groups up to the 2-year follow-up results. There was no significant difference in either outcome score post-operatively between the three groups.

conclusionThe magnitude of clinical improvement following knee replacement is greatest at 6 months; thereafter, only modest improvements continue to occur. This study also found no significant differences of outcomes at 2 years after surgery among UKR, BKR and TKR. BKR is a good alternative option for combined symptomatic medial and patellofemoral arthritis of the knee.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyBicompartmentalClinical outcome scoresTotal knee replacementUnicompartmental

Identifiers

PMID32867858
PMCPMC7457474
OpenAlexW3081948662

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.