ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira2025
BEST PROSTHESIS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROSIS: FIXED OR MOBILE?
Article in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing knee unicompartmental arthroplasty implants in adults (in the medial compartment) to determine which is better for each patient and their particularities. The research focused on postoperative assessments with a follow-up of at least a 2-year, examining both quality of life and mid-term functionality in the medium term. A systematic keyword search was executed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, employing a filter for randomized clinical trials and without language limitations. The search yielded 113 articles from March 28, 2024, including 83 from PubMed, 12 from EMBASE, and 18 from the Cochrane Library. The study found insufficient evidence to establish the superiority of one prosthetic type over the other regarding post-operative function, pain, complications, revisions, and quality of life after a 2-year follow-up. Literature highlights uncertainties in comparing UKA types due to varied assessment tools. No conclusive evidence favors either type regarding post-op function, pain, complication rates, revisions, or quality of life after 2 years. Urgent need for standardized, long-term, multicenter studies to inform evidence-based clinical practice.
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.