ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Overlooked and underestimated: the prevalence and impact of mechanical cement-related complications in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to elucidate the prevalence, clinical manifestations, and potential risk factors of residual bone cement following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to inform effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 321 patients from a single centre who underwent UKA. Residual bone cement was diagnosed using postoperative imaging and classified as residual cement extrusion (RCE) or free cement fragmentation (FCF). Patient data, including clinical records, laboratory findings, and selected management strategies, were collected to analyse risk factors for residual bone cement. The primary outcomes were the prevalence and clinical features of residual bone cement; secondary outcomes included risk factor identification and management outcomes.
resultsResidual bone cement occurred in 84 patients (26.16%), 66 (20.56%) of whom had RCE, and 18 patients (5.61%) had FCF. All RCE patients were asymptomatic or experienced only mild discomfort (66 in 66, 100%). Six patients with FCF required additional surgical intervention due to pain and/or impaired mobility. The thinner polyethylene insert emerged as a risk factor for postoperative residual bone cement (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.38-4.98, p = 0.005).
conclusionsThe prevalence of residual bone cement following UKA is notably higher than previously recognized. Residual bone cement occurred in 84 patients (26.16%) in our study. As CT was performed only in symptomatic patients, this figure likely represents a lower-bound estimate of the true prevalence. Although most patients with residual cement are asymptomatic, further surgery is needed when FCF causes consistent pain and affects joint function. Arthroscopic removal appears effective for fragments in symptomatic patients. A thinner insert is a risk factor for residual bone cement.
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.