ReviewArthroplasty (London, England)2024
Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations.
Review in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Mid- to long-term complications and revision rates of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Excellent survivorship and functional outcomes following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged 55 years or younger.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Patient mortality exceeds implant revision risk with equivalent survival following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in octogenarians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Visual inspection provides precise intraoperative evaluation of tibial slope during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with lower odds of prolonged hospitalization and no higher odds of high-charge admission during the index hospitalization.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Most active patients return to the same or higher level of daily and recreational practice following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Article
- Modern Perspectives on Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: An Editorial Review.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Indications and outcomes in bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Article
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
backgroundUnicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.
methodsWe conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.
resultUKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients' return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon's preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.
conclusionUKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.
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.