ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Revision surgery after failure of lateral unicompartmental knee replacement with a mobile-bearing device: a retrospective non -designer case-series.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revision and re-revision after mobile- and fixed-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFailure of lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) with a mobile-bearing (MB) device often occurs due to bearing dislocation. The effectiveness of various treatment options for revision surgery is not clear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to report on the failure modes in lateral MB-UKR, as well as the results of different revision strategies. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who experienced failure of lateral MB-UKR and required revision surgery at a single-center between 2008 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The aim of the study was to report the reasons for failure and to document all treatment strategies employed. Survivorship analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, with the endpoint defined as 're-revision for any reason'. Survival rates among various treatment strategies were compared using the log-rank test.
resultsA total of 13 patients were included in the study, with a mean follow-up (FU) period of 94.7 ± 36.4 months. The reasons for failure included bearing dislocation in 69.2%, progression of osteoarthritis (OA) in 23.1%, and periprosthetic joint infection in 7.7%. Treatment options included replacement of the tibial component with a fixed-bearing (FB) device in 23.1% of cases, solitary exchange of the bearing in 53.8%, or conversion to an unconstrained total knee replacement (TKR) in 23.1%. The re-dislocation rate in patients who underwent a bearing exchange as a treatment for bearing dislocation was 100%, with a mean FU period of 8.4 ± 11 months. Therefore, survivorship for the treatment of bearing dislocation differed significantly in these patients compared to those who received an exchange to a FB device (0% vs. 100%, p = 0.014).
conclusionsAddressing the recurring issue of bearing dislocation in lateral MB-UKR demands a more comprehensive approach than merely replacing the bearing. Effective solutions include replacing the tibial component with an FB design or converting to an unconstrained TKR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, Level IV.
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.