Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37743356›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: does the type of tibial component selected influence implant survival?

Francisco Javier Montilla, Jesús Payo-Ollero, David Serrano-Toledano, Marta Del Río-Arteaga, Juan Ribera, Rafael Muela

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is really a good option?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francisco Javier MontillaClínica COT, C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez 29, 41011, Seville, Spain.
Jesús Payo-OlleroClínica COT, C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez 29, 41011, Seville, Spain. jpayoollero@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0620-4568
David Serrano-ToledanoClínica COT, C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez 29, 41011, Seville, Spain.
Marta Del Río-ArteagaClínica COT, C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez 29, 41011, Seville, Spain.
Juan RiberaClínica COT, C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez 29, 41011, Seville, Spain.
Rafael MuelaClínica COT, C/ Juan Ramón Jiménez 29, 41011, Seville, Spain.
Hospital San Juan de la Cruz · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew information has been published on the survival of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and fixed-bearing tibial components. The aim of this study is to analyze if UKA survival varies according to UKA model used and to analyze the possible risk factors for UKA revision. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective study analyzing 301 UKAs (ACCURIS, all-polyethylene tibial component, 152; Triathlon PKR, metal-backed tibial component, 149) was performed. Demographic parameters as well as implant survival and cause of prosthetic revision were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the log-rank test and the Cox multiple regression were used for the analysis.

resultsAverage follow-up was 8.1 ± 3.08-years. Average age was 68.1 ± 8.6-years; 70.4% of subjects were women. The ACCURIS UKA group had a UKA revision rate higher compared to the Triathlon PKR group (16/152, 10.6% vs 5/149, 3.4%, respectively; p < 0.001). The main cause of prosthetic revision was aseptic loosening (5/21, 23.8%). All aseptic loosening cases and tibial component collapse were reported with the ACCURIS UKA group. Overall UKA survival was 98.01% (95% CI 95.62-99.1) at 1-year, 94.27% (95% CI 90.95-96.4) at 5-years and 92.38% (95% CI 88.48-94.99) at 10-years' follow-up. There were no differences in the Kaplan-Meier survival curves regarding operated side or affected tibiofemoral compartment (log-rank test = 0.614 and 0.763, respectively). However, Kaplan-Meier survival curve according to UKA model used was different (log-rank test = 0.033). The metal-backed component appeared to be a protector factor for UKA revision when adjusted for age, sex, operated side, and affected tibiofemoral compartment (Hazard Ratio 0.32, p = 0.031).

conclusionFixed-bearing UKAs showed excellent mid- and long-term survival rates. Aseptic loosening is the main cause of implant failure. PKR group (metal-backed component) seem to be a protector factor to UKA revision when it was compared with ACCURIS UKA group (all-polyethylene tibial component).

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeAgedFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleMetalsMiddle AgedPolyethyleneProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMetalsPolyethyleneAll-polyethylene tibial componentOsteoarthritisPartial knee arthroplastySurvivalUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37743356
OpenAlexW4387003212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.