ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Revision from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: An analysis of 118 cases at midterm follow-up.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. 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.
- 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
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
purposeAseptic failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) often requires revision to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, outcomes following revision from UKA to TKA remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to analyze a large cohort of revisions from UKA to TKA, with emphasis on implant survivorship, clinical outcomes and radiographic results.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 118 aseptic revisions from UKA to TKA performed at a single surgical center between 2016 and 2022. Of these, 50 were required due to progression of osteoarthritis (42%), and 44 for aseptic loosening (37%). The mean age was 67 years, 65% were female, and the mean body mass index was 31 kg/m
resultsThe 8-year survivorship free of any re-revision and reoperation was 94% and 92%, respectively. Progression of osteoarthritis was associated with reduced odds of re-revision (odds ratio [OR]: 0.09; p = 0.025) and reoperation (OR: 0.20; p = 0.04). Knee Society Function Scores (KSS-F) improved from 53 to 82 (p < 0.001), with no correlation to implant type, demographics or radiographic patella height. At final follow-up, the mean Oxford Knee and Forgotten Joint Scores were 33 and 54, respectively. The mean modified Insall-Salvati Ratio was 1.56 preoperatively compared to 1.52 at last follow-up (p = 0.07).
conclusionAseptic revision from UKA to TKA provides excellent midterm implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results, particularly when performed for the progression of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.