Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39404769›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

Correlation of revision rate of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty registers.

Stephan Obermayr, Antonio Klasan, Laura Rasic, Georg Hauer, Lukas Leitner, Andreas Leithner, Patrick Sadoghi

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Stephan ObermayrDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Antonio KlasanAUVA UKH Steiermark, Graz, Austria.
Laura RasicDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Georg HauerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Lukas LeitnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Andreas LeithnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Patrick SadoghiDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria. patrick.sadoghi@medunigraz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0786-8956

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this study was to elucidate differences and similarities in revision rates amongst studies and national registers featuring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Thereby comparability and reproducibility between study and register findings should be created. MATERIALS AND

methodsClinical studies published between 2004 and September 2023 involving TKA or UKA were reviewed for total arthroplasty numbers, revision rates and demographic data. Findings were calculated as "revisions per 100 component years (CY)" and divided according to the nationality of the center. National arthroplasty registers were searched for numbers of arthroplasties and revisions alongside with demographic data. Revision rates in registers were compared to one another and comparison to revision rates from collected studies was drawn.

resultsAfter evaluation, 98 studies and seven registers met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Cumulative percent revision rate in studies was 3.35% after a mean follow-up of 5.7 years, corresponding to 0.71 revisions per 100 CY for TKA and 7.67% after a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, corresponding to 1.3 revisions per 100 CY for UKA. Registers showed mean overall revision rates of 5.63% for TKA and 11.04% for UKA.

conclusionsA positive correlation of revision rates of TKA and UKA in studies and registers was found, with overall revision rates of UKA comparted to TKA being 2.29 times higher in clinical studies and 1.96 times higher in registers. Revision rates in registers were 1.56 times higher than presented in clinical studies.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeRegistriesReoperationHumansArthroplasty registerRevision rateSystematic reviewTotal knee arthroplastyUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39404769
PMCPMC11582169

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.