Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223613›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2024

Conversion of UKA to TKA using identical standard implants-How does it compare to primary UKA, primary TKA and revision TKA?

Christian B Scheele, Matthias F Pietschmann, Thomas C Wagner, Peter E Müller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Revision from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: An analysis of 118 cases at midterm follow-up.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

4 authors.

Christian B ScheeleDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, Großhadern Campus, Ludwig Maximilians University, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany. christian.b.scheele@googlemail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1943-5288
Matthias F PietschmannDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, Großhadern Campus, Ludwig Maximilians University, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany.
Thomas C WagnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, Großhadern Campus, Ludwig Maximilians University, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany.
Peter E MüllerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), University Hospital, Großhadern Campus, Ludwig Maximilians University, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUKA is a well-established treatment option for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee, resulting in superior functional outcomes but also higher revision rates than TKA. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of UKA, TKA, UKA converted to TKA using identical standard implants and revised TKA to support clinical decision-making.

methodsIn this study, we retrospectively examined 116 patients who underwent UKA, 77 patients who received TKA, 28 patients whose UKA was converted to TKA using identical standard implants, and 21 patients who had a one-stage revision of TKA. The mean age at operation was 66.5 years (39-90 years), with a mean BMI of 28.8 kg/m

resultsThe highest patient satisfaction was seen in the UKA. All scores were significantly higher for UKA than for TKA, converted UKA, and revised TKA. None of the scores showed a significant inferiority of converted UKA to TKA. In the case of revision, two scores showed significantly better results for converted UKA than for revised TKA.

conclusionsOur results indicated that patients initially treated with UKA did not have significantly worse functional outcomes after conversion to TKA, given the use of identical standard implants. This highlights the effectiveness of UKA as a therapeutic option with outcomes superior to those of primary TKA and the importance of a bone-sparing procedure. Conversely, revision TKA is linked to poorer functional outcomes compared to both primary arthroplasties.

Indexed as

Functional resultsPatient satisfactionRevision arthroplastyTKAUKA

Identifiers

PMID39223613
PMCPMC11370294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.