ArticleKnee surgery & related research2025
Revision of unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an analysis of failure rates and contributing factors.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implantation rate of knee arthroplasty and, in particular of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), is increasing, and revision is a feared complication. The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing aseptic and septic revision that are of high interest for establishing preventive measures.
methodsData were collected using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). Patients with UKA were analyzed using the multiple Log-rank test with Holm's method. Septic and aseptic revisions were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. In total, 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty were identified in the registry, and 36,861 patients with UKA were analyzed with a maximum follow-up of 7 years.
resultsThe primary reason for UKA revision surgery was aseptic loosening (32.5%), particularly loosening of the tibial component (19.0%), followed by infection (11.0%) and the progression of arthritis (10.0%). Over 7 years, 8.7% of UKA procedures required revision, 7.8% for aseptic causes and 0.9% for infection. Risk factors for aseptic revision included uncemented implants [hazard ratio (HR) 1.38] and low annual surgical volume (fewer than 25 UKAs/year, HR 1.86; fewer than 50 UKAs/year, HR 1.43). Significant risks for septic revision were grade III obesity (HR 1.83), male sex (HR 1.69), and high comorbidity scores (Elixhauser > 5, HR 1.67). The surgical volume did not affect septic revision rates.
conclusionAseptic loosening is the primary cause of UKA revision, influenced by implant type and low surgical volume, while septic revisions are associated with patient factors such as obesity, male sex, and comorbidities. Improvements in implant selection, surgical expertise, and patient risk management may reduce revision rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective case-control study.
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.