ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Indications and outcomes in bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 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 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.
- Indications and outcomes in bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze and provide an overview of the indications, contraindications and the clinical outcomes to bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA). Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify original studies written in English reporting indication criteria or clinical outcomes on Bi-UKA) performed simultaneously or at two different stages. Studies reporting patellofemoral implants with medial or lateral implants, ex-vivo or cadaveric studies were excluded. The study was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, with the search covering studies up to February 2025. Results: The literature search identified 783 articles, nine of which were included in this review. A total of 343 patients were identified, of which 257 patients underwent bi-UKA. Medial and lateral osteoarthritis (OA) are the main indications for Bi-UKA. The condition of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was taken into consideration by eight studies and 49 patients (19.02%) presenting functional or macroscopic intact ACL were eligible for Bi-UKA. Age was considered as an eligibility criterion in one study alone. In all studies, Bi-UKA led to the improvement of clinical scores compared to their pre-operative values. Conclusions: Both staged and simultaneous Bi-UKA are viable options to treat knee osteoarthritis. However, further research is needed to better investigate bi-UKA. 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.