Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41498960›Full record

ReviewArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026

Current concepts of medial unicompartmental knee replacement: part 2-hot topics and further directions.

Simone Cerciello, Lorenzo Proietti, Fabrizio Mocini, Katia Corona, Michele Venosa, Michele Mercurio, Philippe Neyret

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Simone CercielloSaint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, Rome, Italy.
Lorenzo ProiettiSaint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, Rome, Italy. proiettilorenzo@hotmail.com.
Fabrizio MociniSaint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, Rome, Italy.
Katia CoronaUniversity of Molise, Campobasso, Italy.
Michele VenosaUniversity of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Michele MercurioMagna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Philippe NeyretReem hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the results of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are extremely positive in most of the cases, several technical aspects are still discussed. Cementation or not is one of them and no clear advantage of one option over the other has emerged; similarly mobile and fixed designs have similar outcomes. Metal back implants although more common than all-poly implants do not have clearly superior outcomes. Similarly technological innovations are leading the research toward more accurate reproduction of unique patients’ anatomy and function with the surgical procedures. Robotics aim at reproducing the pre-arthritic individual joint line and lower limb alignment while custom implants would reproduce the anatomy of the articular surfaces. All these aspects will be discussed in the following article.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeHumansProsthesis DesignRobotic Surgical ProceduresCemented versus cementless fixationCustom knee implantsFixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacementKnee osteoarthritisMedial unicompartmental knee arthroplastyMobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacementPatient-specific instrumentationRadiolucent linesRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID41498960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.