ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2024
Analysis of the causes of primary revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A case series.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to manage and avoid revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Analysis of causes for revision in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Insights into complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has great advantages in the treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, but its revision rate is higher than that of total knee arthroplasty.
aimTo summarize and analyse the causes of revision after UKA.
methodsThis is a retrospective case series study in which the reasons for the first revision after UKA are summarized. We analysed the clinical symptoms, medical histories, laboratory test results, imaging examination results and treatment processes of the patients who underwent revision and summarized the reasons for primary revision after UKA.
resultsA total of 13 patients, including 3 males and 10 females, underwent revision surgery after UKA. The average age of the included patients was 67.62 years. The prosthesis was used for 3 d to 72 months. The main reasons for revision after UKA were improper suturing of the surgical opening (1 patient), osteophytes (2 patients), intra-articular loose bodies (2 patients), tibial prosthesis loosening (2 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (1 patient), gasket dislocation (3 patients), anterior cruciate ligament injury (1 patient), and medial collateral ligament injury with residual bone cement (1 patient).
conclusionThe causes of primary revision after UKA were gasket dislocation, osteophytes, intra-articular loose bodies and tibial prosthesis loosening. Avoidance of these factors may greatly reduce the rate of revision after UKA, improve patient satisfaction and reduce medical burden.
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.