ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Implant selection and causes of aseptic failure in conversion from unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: A high-volume centre series.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to describe the causes of aseptic failure leading to conversion from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to report implant selection and mid-term outcomes in a high-volume orthopaedic centre. Methods: In this retrospective single-centre case series, 27 patients (13 women, 14 men; mean age 68.9 years, range 55-81) undergoing conversion from UKA to TKA between January 2013 and December 2020 were included. Causes of UKA failure, type of revision implant (posterior-stabilised [PS], constrained posterior-stabilised [CPS] or legacy constrained condylar knee [LCCK]), and use of tibial stem extensions were recorded. Implant survival after conversion was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and re-revision rates were documented. Absolute numbers with percentages were reported. Results: The most common causes of UKA failure were periprosthetic tibial fracture (10/27; 37%), tibial component loosening (8/27; 30%) and progression of osteoarthritis (7/27; 26%). PS implants were used in 17 patients (63%; 6 with cemented tibial stem), CPS in 9 (33%; all with stems) and LCCK in 1 (4%; with stem). Overall, tibial stem extensions were used in 16 cases (59%). At a mean follow-up of 23 months (range 0-89), 2 patients (7%) underwent re-revision: one for tibial loosening and one for instability. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated a median implant survival of 74 months (SD 17.1; 95% CI: 40.6-107.4 months). Conclusion: In this specialised high-volume centre, conversion of UKA to TKA was most performed for mechanical failure or disease progression. Most cases could be managed with PS implants, with selective use of stems or higher constraint when indicated. Re-revisions were rare, but findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size, variable follow-up and potential selection bias. 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.