ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2026
Comparison of conversion unicompartmental knee arthroplasties to primary and revision total knee arthroplasties: A gradient of complexity.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) are often revised to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but concerns remain surrounding outcomes of UKA revision to TKA. The primary aim of this study was to compare revision rates of conversion UKA to TKA to matched cohorts of both primary and revision TKA procedures. Secondary aims were to compare implants characteristics, intraoperative, and functional outcomes. Methods: This was a single centre cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent UKA conversion to TKA from 2012 to 2023. Patients undergoing conversion UKA with minimum two year follow-up were included and matched 1:1:1 to patients undergoing primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA, excluding periprosthetic fractures. Indications for surgery, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes, including revision rates, complications, and range of motion (ROM), were collected and compared between groups. Results: One hundred patients underwent conversion of a UKA to TKA that met inclusion criteria and were matched 1:1:1 to primary and revision TKAs (total n = 300). Post-matching, the mean age was 69.0 years and 75% were female. There was no statistically significant difference in revision rates between UKA to TKA (6.0%), primary TKA (1.0%) and revision TKA groups (14.0%), though reoperation rates were higher following UKA revision compared to primary TKA (p = 0.028). UKA conversion cases had longer operative times (103.0min vs. 72.7min, p < 0.001) and more frequent use of tibial augments (38% versus 0%, p < 0.001) and stems (56% versus 3%, p < 0.001) than primary TKA. UKA conversion demonstrated ROM similar to primary TKA (p = 1.000) but superior to revision TKA (p = 0.050). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest conversion of UKA to TKA is more complex than primary TKA but less than revision TKA. Patients should be advised of higher reoperation rates compared to primary TKA, although similar functional outcomes. Surgeons should be prepared for increased implant complexity in these cases.
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.