ArticleBone & joint open2026
Fast fix or false hope? Polyethylene exchange in unstable primary unconstrained total knee arthroplasty.
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: Instability is a leading cause of revision after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Isolated polyethylene exchange (IPE), typically involving increased insert thickness, is considered a fast and low-risk treatment option. However, evidence supporting its effectiveness remains limited. This study assesses outcomes and risk factors of IPE for secondary instability in unconstrained primary TKAs using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). Methods: Patients with unconstrained primary TKA and subsequent IPE due to presumed instability were included. Polyethylene height increase served as a surrogate for instability severity. Cases with infection were excluded. Secondary patellar resurfacing (SPR) was analyzed as a potential influencing factor. Multivariate Cox regression and time-dependent analyses were used to identify predictors for re-revision, defined as any subsequent revision procedure. Results: The study included 1,890 patients. IPE was performed on at a mean of 639 days (SD 521; 1 to 3343) after primary TKA, with a mean height increase of 3 mm (SD 2.2). The overall re-revision rate was 13.5%; 2.4% were due to periprosthetic joint infection. SPR was associated with lower revision risk (hazard ratio (HR) 0.50; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.68; p < 0.001). IPE one and two years after the index operation was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent revision (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55; HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60). Polyethylene height increase > 3 mm was not associated with worse outcomes (< 3 mm HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.17; p = 0.358). Conclusion: IPE can be a viable treatment for mild secondary instability following primary TKA, particularly with careful patient selection. SPR appears to improve implant survival and should be considered in cases with patellar pathology. Early-onset instability warrants critical evaluation, as it may indicate deeper underlying issues requiring component revision. These findings highlight the importance of an individualized surgical approach and underscore the need for thorough preoperative counselling to align treatment strategy with patient-specific risk factors and expectations.
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.