SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term outcomes after hybrid unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study with minimum 3-year follow-up.Medicine · 2026Article
- Investigation of component alignment and patient factors for the risk of subsidence in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Unicompartmental vs. Total Knee Arthroplasty: Microbiological Spectrum and Management Outcomes.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis sought to compare the efficacy of cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty(UKA) for the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis.
methodsA comprehensive search of the following databases was conducted: Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Embase, the Web of Science, and MEDLINE. The objective was to identify literature comparing cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis. Duplicate literature, low-quality literature, literature with incompatible observations, and literature for which the full text was not available were excluded. Two independent researchers employed the Cochrane Risk Assessment Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of the included literature. The data then were extracted and subsequently meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.4.
resultsA total of 12 papers were included in the analysis, encompassing a cumulative of 2558 cumulative cases. Of these, 1258 were cemented and 1300 were cementless. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of cemented versus cementless Oxford UKA. The Oxford UKA group exhibited a significantly longer surgery time than the cementless Oxford UKA group [mean difference (MD) = 9.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) (7.64,12.17)]. Additionally, the cemented Oxford UKA group demonstrated a significantly lower knee OKS score compared to the cementless Oxford UKA group. The mean difference (MD) was - 1.58 (95% CI: -2.30, -0.86), indicating a significantly lower score for the cemented Oxford UKA group. Similarly, the mean difference (MD) was - 1.8 for the knee KSS clinical score, indicating a significantly lower score for the cemented Oxford UKA group. The results demonstrated that the knee KSS functional score was significantly lower in the cemented Oxford UKA group than in the cementless Oxford UKA group [MD=-1.72, 95% CI (-3.26, -0.37)]. 95% CI (-3.27,-0.17)], the cemented Oxford UKA group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of radiolucent lines around the prosthesis than the cementless Oxford UKA group [ratio of ratios (OR) = 3.62, 95% CI (1.08,12.13)]. The revision rate was significantly higher in the cemented Oxford UKA group than in the cementless Oxford UKA group [OR = 2.22, 95% CI (1.40,3.53)]. However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of reoperation rate, five-year prosthesis survival rate, and complication rate.
conclusionsThe findings indicated that, in comparison to cemented Oxford UKA, cementless Oxford UKA resulted in a reduction in surgical time, an improvement in knee OKS score, KSS clinical score, and KSS functional score, and a decrease in the incidence of periprosthetic radiolucent lines and the rate of revisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39294529What 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.