ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021
Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Single Condylar Knee Prosthesis When Treating Knee Single Compartment Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Case-Randomized Controlled Study.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Trial
- Long-term outcomes and revision-free survival following robotic-assisted unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Lower re-revision rates after UKA-to-TKA than UKA-to-UKA revision for failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Article
- Long-term outcome of periprosthetic joint infection following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A single-centre case series.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Revision surgery after failure of lateral unicompartmental knee replacement with a mobile-bearing device: a retrospective non -designer case-series.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- How to Perform Better on Oxford UKA? A Technical Note from over 500 Surgical Experiences.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of various types of revision surgeries after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty failure.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Effect of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty combined with arthroscopic debridement on knee osteoarthritis and analysis of risk factors of deep venous thrombosis.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA?
methodsRevision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis).
resultsOver the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions).
conclusionThe increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.
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.