ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is safe and effective at a minimum follow-up of 4.2 years: A systematic review.
Review 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Excellent survivorship and functional outcomes following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged 55 years or younger.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- 'Wear advantage' of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a myth: Higher volumetric wear without reduced revision rates compared to the fixed-bearing design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Lower re-revision rates after UKA-to-TKA than UKA-to-UKA revision for failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty anatomy, indications, technique, and outcomes: a narrative review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Review
- Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is safe and effective at a minimum follow-up of 4.2 years: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
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
Purpose: Cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a widely used procedure in the treatment of anteromedial and lateral knee osteoarthritis. However, several advantages are reported for cementless UKA, such as improved osseointegration, reduced cement-related costs and complications. The aim of this study was to analyse clinical outcomes, survival, complications, failures and revision rate of cementless UKA. Methods: A systematic review was performed on 31 May 2024, on PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus. We included randomised clinical trials and prospective and retrospective studies reporting clinical outcomes, implant survival, complications, failures and revision rates of cementless UKA. The following data were extracted: study design, type of implant, number of patients and knees, follow-up, age, sex, pre-operative and post-operative clinical outcomes, reoperations and revisions with causes of failure and overall survival. Results: Fifteen studies were included, involving 3475 patients and 3641 UKA (2568 cementless UKA and 854 cemented UKA). The mean patients' age was 66 years. The mean follow-up was 6.5 years. The Oxford Knee Score improved from 17.8 preoperatively to 40.3 post-operatively in cementless UKA. Knee Society Score improved from 118.2 preoperatively to 168.6 post-operatively in cementless UKA. The reoperation rate was 3.85% for cementless UKA and 9% for cemented UKA. The most common causes of revision were osteoarthritis progression (1.4%), aseptic loosening (0.8%), bearing dislocation and unexplained pain (0.7%). The overall survival of cementless UKA was 96.2% and 93.6% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Conclusion: Cementless UKA is a viable alternative to cemented UKAs with a low failure rate, without a lower clinical benefit at a minimum follow-up of 4.2 years. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review of studies.
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.