Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The Past, Current Controversies, and Future Perspectives.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Conflict of interest statement: None. 2. Bone Joint J. 2017 Jan;99-B(1):12-15. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0515.R1. Bias and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Murray DW(1), Liddle AD(1), Judge A(1), Pandit H(1). Author information: (1)University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK. We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as "biased" in a review in Bone & Joint 360 Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12-15. ©2017 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0515.R1