ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Hinge prostheses in the revision of unicompartmental knee replacement: a descriptive analysis of data from the national joint registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an effective surgical strategy in patients with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. Study aims were to (1) describe the epidemiology of patients undergoing revision of UKR to a hinge knee replacement (HKR); (2) identify factors influencing time to revision; (3) evaluate HKR survival. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn analysis of National Joint Registry data was undertaken, exploring revision of UKR to HKR between 2007 and April 2021. Descriptive analysis of eligible patients and Cox Regression to identify key determinants of time to revision were performed. Failure of HKR post-revision was assessed using survival analysis.
results111 patients underwent revision of UKR to HKR. Median age at revision was 70 years and most common indications were instability (n = 42) and infection (n = 22). The most common implant was a rotating HKR. Significant independent factors associated with earlier revision were periprosthetic fracture (p = 0.03) and malalignment (p = 0.03). Progressive osteoarthritis (p = 0.01) and higher ASA grades (3: p = 0.01, 4: p < 0.01) delayed time to revision; patient sex and age were not significant factors. Ten patients required subsequent re-revision; median age at re-revision was 61 years. HKR revised from UKR had an 89.3% revision-free risk at 5 years. Male sex (p < 0.01) and younger age (p < 0.01) were associated with re-revision.
conclusionsFactors associated with time to revision may be used to counsel patients prior to UKR. The survivorship of the HKR of 89.3% at 5 years is concerning and careful consideration should be given when using this level of constraint when revising UKR in younger or male patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37561165What 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.