ReviewArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy in appropriately selected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Arthroplasty (London, England), 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
aimsHigh tibial osteotomy (HTO) is an established treatment for medial knee osteoarthritis in younger, more active patients than typical arthroplasty candidates, but some may require conversion over time. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has traditionally been the preferred procedure after failed HTO. With advances in implant design and surgical techniques, the role of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in this setting warrants re-evaluation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarize and descriptively compare the outcomes of UKA and TKA following HTO.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science until 14th August 2025 (date last searched). Randomized and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and case series) reporting outcomes of UKA or TKA following HTO were included, while case reports, technical notes, reviews, and studies without sufficient data were excluded.
resultsForty-one studies (6 UKA-only, 33 TKA-only, and 2 comparative studies contributing to both groups) met inclusion criteria. Due to the limited number of comparative studies, comparisons between procedures are indirect/descriptive and should not be interpreted as evidence of relative treatment performance. After HTO, UKA demonstrated pooled revision and reoperation rates of 10.2% (95% CI = 4.5-21.6%, I
conclusionsThis study suggests that UKA after HTO should not be considered an absolute contraindication and may have a role in a carefully selected subset of patients with isolated medial osteoarthritis, sufficient MCL, and acceptable residual alignment. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, as the current evidence base consists predominantly of retrospective observational studies. Accordingly, the present findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than as evidence establishing equivalence or comparative effectiveness between UKA and TKA after failed HTO. Prospective comparative studies are needed to better define its effectiveness relative to TKA, refine patient selection algorithms, and clarify the influence of residual deformity on outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.