ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023
Fixed-bearing is superior to mobile-bearing in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrospective matched-pairs analysis.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of revision risk between lateral knee replacement and total knee replacement: results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Ninety-three point seven percent pooled 10-year survival rate following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for isolated lateral knee osteoarthritis-A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Comparison of efficacy and cost-effectiveness between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Sport participation after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: High return rates independent of implant design or technique, a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Varus tibial alignment is associated with improved joint awareness after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for lateral compartment knee osteoarthritis: a credible surgical approach and short-term clinical outcomes.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is really a good option?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Lateral UKA can be a safe solution in a young patients' population: a 10-year follow-up report.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDue to low incidence of isolated lateral osteoarthritis (OA), there are limited data on whether a fixed-bearing (FB) or a mobile-bearing (MB) design is superior for lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The aim of this matched-pairs analysis was to compare both designs in terms of implant survival and clinical outcome.
methodsPatients who received MB-UKR (Group A) and FB-UKR (Group B) at a single centre were matched according to gender, age at time of surgery and body mass index (BMI). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint set as "revision for any reason". Clinical outcome was assessed using the Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), patients' satisfaction, University of California Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA) and the Tegner activity score (TAS).
resultsA total of 60 matched pairs were included with a mean follow-up (FU) of 3.4 ± 1.3 (range 1.2-5.0) years in Group A and 2.7 ± 1.2 (range 1.0-5.0) years in Group B. Survivorship between both groups differed significantly (Group A: 78.7%; Group B: 98.3%, p = 0.003) with bearing dislocation being the most common reason for revision in Group A (46.2%). The relative and absolute risk reduction were 92.2% and 20%, respectively, with 5 being the number needed to treat. There were no differences in OKS (Group A: 41.6 ± 6.5; Group B: 40.4 ± 7.7), VAS (Group A: 2.9 ± 3.2; Group B: 1.6 ± 2.2), UCLA (Group A: 5.7 ± 1.3; Group B: 5.9 ± 1.8) and TAS (Group A: 3.0 ± 1.0; Group B: 3.1 ± 1.2) between both groups on follow-up.
conclusionDespite modern prosthesis design and surgical technique, implant survival of lateral MB-UKR is lower than that of FB-UKR on the short- to mid-term due to bearing dislocation as the most common cause of failure. Since clinical results are equivalent in both groups, FB-UKR should be preferred in treatment of isolated lateral OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case-control study, Level III.
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.