ReviewDer Orthopade2021
[Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cutting-Edge Approaches in Arthroplasty: Before, during and after Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Contemporary knee arthroplasty: one fits all or time for diversity?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA higher patient satisfaction stands in contrast to higher revision rates of unicondylar knee joint endoprosthetics (UKE) compared to total knee joint endoprosthetics (TKE). Furthermore, old "dogmas" regarding indications and contraindications persist, which is still reflected in the significantly different case numbers.
aimThe aim of this article is to provide an overview of the current literature regarding 1. indication and contraindication (BMI, age, sport, arthrosis of other compartments, ligament status) and 2. the "eternal rival" fixed or mobile bearing for UKE.
resultsThe choice of the right patient remains essential, even if all the old "dogmas" of contraindications have been relativized or even outdated. Arthroses of the contralateral (in medial UKE correspondingly lateral) compartment and advanced arthroses of the lateral patella facet remain the only persistent contraindications. In contrast, a high BMI, age, chondrocalcinosis, medial patella facet and a defective (but particularly functionally stable) ACL are not contraindications; however, severe obesity is responsible for a significantly higher complication rate and probably a higher rate of loosening. Rather, the experience and thus the number of UKEs of the individual surgeon is decisive for the outcome, to which the discussion about mobile or fixed inlays must also be completely subordinated.
conclusionThe indications for UKE can, therefore, be extended with a clear conscience on the basis of literature, and the current 1:10 UKE:TKE ratio in Germany can be shifted significantly.
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.