SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparative outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-Analysis of high tibial osteotomy vs. unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: a comprehensive meta-analysis with patient-specific stratification by age, BMI, and preoperative activity levels.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO), Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA), and Proximal Fibular Osteotomy (PFO) for Medial-Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis: A Narrative Review of Comparative Mechanisms, Clinical Outcomes, and Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Finite Element Analysis of Von Mises Stress in External Fixators for Open Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study of ASTM F1541-02 and Tibia-Based Models in Indonesian Patients.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigh tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are two common approaches for managing unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. However, both procedures may eventually require revision to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and functional performance of revision TKA following HTO (HTO-TKA) versus revision TKA following UKA (UKA-TKA). The findings are intended to offer valuable insights for optimizing treatment strategies for patients with knee osteoarthritis in clinical practice.
methodsThe postoperative clinical outcomes and functional results of HTO-TKA and UKA-TKA were assessed through a comprehensive review of relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 2024. Primary endpoints included knee function scores, postoperative complications, and revision rates. Secondary endpoints encompassed operation time, range of motion (ROM), postoperative infections, and the types of revision implants used.
resultsThis meta-analysis included 11 retrospective studies involving a total of 10,045 patients. The results demonstrated that the HTO-TKA group had significantly better knee function scores compared to the UKA-TKA group (MD = 3.35, 95% CI: [0.84, 5.87], I²=95%, P = 0.009). Although the HTO-TKA group showed statistically higher knee function scores, the mean difference (MD = 3.35) did not reach the established MCID threshold for KSS (6-10 points), indicating that the clinical significance of this difference remains uncertain. Additionally, fewer revision implants were required in the HTO-TKA group (OR = 0.11, 95%CI: [0.05, 0.23], I²=90%, P < 0.00001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: [0.67, 2.17], I²=59%, P = 0.53), revision rates (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: [0.53, 1.26], I²=76%, P = 0.35), operation time (MD=-2.00, 95%CI: [-11.22, 7.21], I²=91%, P = 0.67), range of motion (ROM) (MD=-0.04, 95% CI: [-3.69, 3.61], I²=0%, P = 0.98), or postoperative infections (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: [0.56, 1.17], I²=48%, P = 0.26). Sensitivity analysis indicated heterogeneity, prompting the need for a subgroup analysis. After manual removal, the HTO-TKA group had a lower revision rate compared to the UKA-TKA group (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.83], I²=18%, P = 0.0006), and the HTO-TKA group had a statistically significant shorter operative time compared to the UKA-TKA group (MD=-9.15, 95% CI: [-11.97, -6.33], I²=33%, P < 0.00001).
conclusionWhile HTO-TKA was associated with marginally better knee function scores and reduced revision implant usage compared to UKA-TKA, the clinical relevance of these differences remains uncertain. Clinicians should weigh these findings against the limitations of retrospective data and evolving surgical techniques when selecting between HTO and UKA for patients with medial compartment KOA. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.