ArticleBone & joint open2026
Comparable revision outcomes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis : results from the German Arthroplasty Registry.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to compare the risk of revision surgery between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who underwent primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and those with osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Data from the German Endoprosthesis Registry (EPRD) were used to compare 796 cases of primary UKA in RA patients with 67,653 cases in patients with OA. Revisions were classified into major (revision of at least the femoral or tibial component) and minor (no bony component revision, including only insert exchange), based on the surgical and procedural codes recorded in the register and further stratified by aseptic or septic revision. Mahalanobis matching was performed with a 1 RA to 5 OA ratio. The crude and matched cumulative risk of these procedures was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Statistical significance of differences was assessed using the log-rank test. Results: At two years, the crude cumulative risk of major revision was similar between RA (3.5%) and OA patients (3.3% p = 0.860). Matched analysis showed no significant difference with patients with OA (3.1%; p = 0.650). When stratified by cause, septic and aseptic major revisions did not differ between groups. For minor revisions, the crude risk was not different between patients with RA (2.2%) and in OA (1.3%; p = 0.071); matched analysis also showed no significant difference with patients with OA (1.5%; p = 0.236). When stratified by cause, no differences were observed in septic or aseptic minor revisions. Comparable patterns persisted through nine years. Conclusion: RA does not appear to impact the risk of revision surgery compared with OA. However, the limited sample size and relatively short follow-up necessitate ongoing monitoring to determine the risk for long-term outcomes.
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.