Observational studyEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
No advantage for patient-specific UKA in comparison with standard UKA regarding clinical and functional results at short-term follow-up.
Observational study in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03201172 (Prospective Observational 2 Year Follow-up on a Retrospective Cohort of Primary Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Observational 2 Year Follow-up on a Retrospective Cohort of Primary Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) Patients Treated With Univation® X or iUni®.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three dimensional printing in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current evidence and future directions.International orthopaedics · 2026Review
- A narrative review of clinical research on knee osteoarthritis in 2025.Annals of joint · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUnicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a less invasive alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for patients with isolated unicondylar knee osteoarthritis and obtains good functional and clinical results. Still, the revision and survival rates of UKA are inferior compared to TKA. Therefore, patient-specific implants were introduced to obtain more reliable results. This retrospective study compares standard UKA and patient-specific UKA after short-term follow-up.
methodsOne study group consisted of 50 patients with a standard UKA implant, implanted using navigation technology. The other group consisted of 25 patients with a patient-specific implant, implanted using respective patient-specific instruments.
results2 years postoperatively, functional and clinical scores were similar or better in the standard UKA group. The postoperative range of motion and axial alignment were comparable in both groups. The number of complications was low, without any case of aseptic loosening.
conclusionStandard UKA and patient-specific UKA provide good short-term clinical and functional results. No benefit was obtained using patient-specific implants, which would justify the high cost and effort of this technique for "standard" patients with medial osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03201172 (clinicaltrials.gov).
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.