ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
A comparison of revision risk between lateral knee replacement and total knee replacement: results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
background and purposeLateral knee replacement is not commonly performed. Possible explanations are the lower incidence of lateral knee osteoarthritis, relative technical complexity, and different biomechanics, which may affect failure modes and survival rates. We aimed to analyze the difference in risk of revision between lateral and total knee replacements (TKRs) using the Dutch Arthroplasty Register data.
methodsFrom 2007 to 2021, procedures were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Unique patients based on their first procedure were identified. Procedures performed between 2014 and 2021 were analyzed separately because BMI and Charnley score were collected from 2014 onwards. We used ATT (Average Treatment effect on the Treated) weights based on the propensity score to estimate the average treatment effect in the lateral knee replacement group. The endpoint was revision, censored for death. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed in propensity-based ATT-weighted cohorts of lateral knee replacement and TKR patients. Weighted univariable Cox regression models were used to estimate revision hazard ratios (HR).
resultsIn the total cohort, 847 lateral knee replacements and 240,047 TKR patients were included. In the subgroup, 560 lateral knee replacements and 155,621 TKR patients were included. The risk of revision in both the total cohort and the subgroup was higher for lateral knee replacements compared with TKRs with an ATT-adjusted HR for the total cohort of 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-2.64, P < 0.001) and for the subgroup an ATT-adjusted HR of 1.55 (CI 1.08-2.21, P = 0.02). Comparison of these ATT-weighted effects with the conditional effect estimates from a regular multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression did not show large differences in this study.
conclusionThis study showed a significantly higher risk of revision for lateral knee replacements compared with TKRs.
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.