ReviewEFORT open reviews2022
Medial unicompartmental knee replacement is a viable treatment option after failed high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy in appropriately selected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Review
- Positive Results Using Variable Fixation in Medial Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomies in Patients with Unilateral Knee Osteoarthritis: An Observational Clinical Investigation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: It is debatable whether or not previous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) has negative effects on the results of subsequent medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The purpose of this study is to report, through a systematic review of the literature, the outcomes of medial UKR after failed HTO. It was hypothesized that this procedure would be safe and effective in providing satisfactory postoperative functional outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. Only studies in English pertaining to all levels of evidence reporting on subjects undergoing UKR following HTO were considered. Review articles and expert opinion or editorial pieces were excluded. Outcomes of interest included indications, surgical technique and associated procedures, type of prosthesis, clinical and functional outcomes, rate of complications, revision surgery and failure rate. Results: Overall, six studies met all the inclusion criteria for this review. All were published between 2006 and 2021. The search resulted in one prospective comparative study, four retrospective comparative cohort studies, and one retrospective cohort study. Average follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 13 years. From these studies, 115 patients (117 knees) were identified. Overall, most studies reported satisfying postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. Implant survivorship ranged from 66 to 97.6%. In 15 patients, revision surgery was performed due to persistent pain. Conclusions: Medial UKR performed after failed HTO appears as a feasible procedure providing satisfying outcomes and limited complications in most cases. Further prospective comparative studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed, as high-level studies on this topic are lacking.
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.