ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Lower re-revision rates after UKA-to-TKA than UKA-to-UKA revision for failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lower re-revision rates after UKA-to-TKA than UKA-to-UKA revision for failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Revision following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains challenging, and optimal revision strategy is still debated. This study analysed failure mechanisms after aseptic medial UKA revision and compared mid-term outcomes between UKA-to-UKA and UKA-to-total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revision procedures. Methods: A retrospective single-centre study included 113 consecutive aseptic UKA revisions performed between 2001 and 2020. Patients were stratified into UKA-to-UKA ( Results: During follow-up, re-revision occurred in 8 of 38 UKA-to-UKA revisions (21.1%) and in 3 of 75 UKA-to-TKA revisions (4.0%). Re-revision after UKA-to-TKA revision occurred due to suspected early infection ( Conclusion: Conversion of medial UKA to TKA was associated with lower re-revision rates compared with UKA-to-UKA revision, while patient-reported outcomes were comparable between strategies. UKA-to-UKA revision may remain appropriate in selected cases with surgically addressable failure mechanisms. These findings support an individualised revision strategy based on the underlying cause of failure. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.