ArticleJB & JS open access
A Comparison of the Outcomes of Simultaneous Bilateral and Unilateral Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties: An Analysis of Data from the National Joint Registry of England, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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.
- [Comparison of early effectiveness and safety between domestic robot-assisted and conventional simultaneous unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for bilateral anteromedial compartment osteoarthritis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment for unicompartmental end-stage knee arthritis. Simultaneous bilateral UKAs for patients with bilateral knee arthritis can reduce costs, number of anesthetics, and overall rehabilitation time. It is unknown how the long-term outcomes of unilateral and simultaneous bilateral UKAs compare. Methods: In total, 1,939 unilateral and 1,939 simultaneous bilateral medial mobile-bearing UKAs (n = 3,878) from the National Joint Registry were propensity score matched. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were used to compare implant survival, revision indications, and mortality. Results: The 10-year implant survival in the simultaneous bilateral group was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90-94) and in the unilateral group was 90% (95% CI 88-92). The simultaneous bilateral group had a lower revision risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, p = 0.01). Revisions for pain were lower in the bilateral group (0.5% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.01). There were no differences in patient mortality. Subgroup analyses found similar trends in 10-year implant survival and revision risk with both cementless (simultaneous bilateral 98% CI 95-99; unilateral 95% CI 91-98; HR 0.66, p = 0.27) and cemented fixation (simultaneous bilateral 91% CI 89-93; unilateral 90% CI 88%-92%; HR 0.85, p = 0.28). Conclusions: Simultaneous bilateral UKAs had better 10-year implant survival and similar mortality to compared with single-unilateral UKAs. For patients with severe symptomatic bilateral unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, simultaneous bilateral UKAs could be considered to be a safe and effective procedure, particularly as only one operation and postoperative recovery is required. Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.