ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Revision of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-Not as uncomplicated as one thought? Analysis of survival and re-revisions from a single centre.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implant selection and causes of aseptic failure in conversion from unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: A high-volume centre series.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Revision of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-Not as uncomplicated as one thought? Analysis of survival and re-revisions from a single centre.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a treatment option for medial knee osteoarthritis, with an increase in surgeries over the last few years. However, the results of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after a UKA vary greatly. The purpose of the study was to examine the survival after revision TKA of a failed UKA. Methods: This is a retrospective single-centre analysis that includes 35 revision TKA procedures after the failed UKA performed from 2004 to 2019. The median follow-up after revision TKA was 39 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 32-52). The indication for revision of the UKA was aseptic loosening in 49% of patients (17/35). We evaluated demographic factors, reason for revision and revision implant used with descriptive statistics. Implant survival analysis with a focus on re-revision-free survival and potential re-revisions was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Differences in survival were analyzed using the log-rank test. Results: Forty per cent (14/35) of revision implants were posterior stabilized revision TKA, followed by 34% (12/35) of condylar constrained designs and 23% of rotating hinged TKA (8/35). Only one patient was revised to a cruciate retaining primary implant (3%). The re-revision-free survival after revision TKA amounted to 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%-100%) after 1 year, 80% (95% CI: 67%-93%) after 2 years and 74% (95% CI: 56%-90%) at 5 years. Twenty-three per cent of patients (8/35) underwent re-revision after the initial UKA revision after a median time period of 21 months (IQR: 12-24). The reasons for repeat revision were tibial aseptic loosening in 9% of patients (3/35), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 9% of patients (3/35) and instability in 5% (2/35). Rotating hinge knee implants showed reduced survivorship. Conclusions: Revision of medial UKA is associated with an increased use of more elaborate and complex revision implants. There is a substantial risk of repeat revision, with aseptic tibial loosening and PJI being the main reasons for the failure of this series. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.