ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Revision and re-revision after mobile- and fixed-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article in International 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited information is available about revision after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) due to infrequency of this procedure. The purpose of this study is to examine reason for failure, time to failure, patient characteristics, type of revision and re-revision surgeries after failed mobile- and fixed-bearing lateral UKA.
methodsIn this single centre study, a total of 43 patients who underwent a revision surgery between 2010 and 2024 after mobile- and fixed-bearing lateral UKA implantation were analyzed. Demographic information, time to revision surgery, reason for failure, type of revision and re-revision surgery of these patients were evaluated.
resultsIn revision after mobile-bearing lateral UKA group with 20 patients, progression of osteoarthritis (OA) and bearing dislocation were the leading reasons for revision. In 13 cases, conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), in four cases conversion to fixed-bearing component and in three cases bearing exchange were performed after a failed mobile-bearing lateral UKA. After revision, five patients underwent a re-revision surgery. In revision after fixed-bearing lateral UKA group with 23 patients, progression of OA was the leading reason for revision. In 20 cases, conversion to TKA, in two cases conversion to TKA with augments and in one case conversion to Vanguard 360 knee revision system with augments were performed. After revision to TKA, one patient underwent a re-revision surgery.
conclusionsTKA without augments could be used in 94% of cases, if revision to TKA is performed. Bearing exchange or revision to fixed-bearing lateral UKA resulted in a high re-revision rate of 57%, so alternative revision strategies should be considered after a failed mobile-bearing lateral UKA.
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.