Accuracy and completeness of registry-reported unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision.

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] 4. Knee. 2020 Oct;27(5):1332-1342. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.06.004. Epub 2020 Jul 27. Age stratified, matched comparison of unicompartmental and total knee replacement. Kennedy JA(1), Mohammad HR(2), Mellon SJ(2), Dodd CAF(3), Murray DW(4). Author information: (1)Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: james.kennedy@ndorms.ox.ac.uk. (2)Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. (3)Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. (4)Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom; Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) tends to provide better function but has a higher revision rate than total knee replacement (TKR). The aim was to determine if this occurred in all age groups. METHODS: Two large, non-registry, prospective cohorts with median 10-year follow-up (2252 TKR, 1000 medial UKR) were identified. All UKR met recommended indications. TKR with an inappropriate disease pattern for medial UKR were excluded. Knees were propensity score-matched within age-strata (