{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T14:43:22Z","timestamp":1787755402016,"version":"build-2784847793"},"reference-count":38,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"7","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Two tibial component designs are mainly used in fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): metal-backed (MtB) and all-polyethylene (AP). While AP components allow for increased polyethylene thickness with minimal bone resection, MtB implants offer modularity for isolated bearing exchange and potentially superior stress distribution. However, controversy remains regarding their respective revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered our protocol on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024604110). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus up to December 10, 2024, without language restrictions. Studies comparing MtB and AP tibial components in medial fixed-bearing UKA were included, assessing revision rates, PROMs, and range of motion (ROM). Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers, and statistical analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for all-cause revision and aseptic tibial loosening rates, whereas mean differences were calculated for PROMs and ROM.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Sixteen studies involving 34,738 participants (34,998 knees) were included, with 21,097 knees receiving MtB prostheses and 13,836 receiving AP prostheses. The overall all-cause revision and aseptic tibial loosening rates were significantly lower in the MtB group: OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.79; p = 0.003 and OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99; p = 0.048, respectively. However, PROMs\u2014including Knee Society Score, Knee Society Function Score, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Short Form-36, and ROM\u2014were comparable between groups.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>MtB tibial components in medial fixed-bearing UKA offer comparable PROMs and ROM with significantly lower rates of both all-cause revision and revision because of aseptic tibial component loosening relative to AP designs.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Level of Evidence:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Therapeutic\n                      <jats:underline>Level III<\/jats:underline>\n                      . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.2106\/jbjs.rvw.25.00061","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,18]],"date-time":"2025-07-18T18:00:19Z","timestamp":1752861619000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Metal-Backed Tibial Components Offer Comparable Patient-Reported Outcome Measures With Lower Revision Rates Compared With All-Polyethylene Tibial Components in Medial Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty"],"prefix":"10.2106","volume":"13","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0007-7855-6649","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Sina","family":"Hajiaghajani","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0001-4242-4253","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Sadra","family":"Mohebbi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Keivan","family":"Asadi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Student Research Committee, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mohammad","family":"Poursalehian","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran"},{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1790-9686","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Negin","family":"Ashoori","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of medicine, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-6661-2275","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Amir","family":"Mehrvar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Clinical Research Development Unit (CRDU), Taleghani Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,7]]},"reference":[{"issue":"4","key":"r1-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"947","DOI":"10.1007\/s00590-018-2358-9","article-title":"Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis","volume":"29","author":"Migliorini","year":"2019","journal-title":"Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol"},{"issue":"8","key":"r2-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1611","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2019.04.005","article-title":"Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides significantly greater improvement in function than total knee arthroplasty despite equivalent satisfaction for isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis","volume":"34","author":"Casper","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"issue":"3","key":"r3-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"232","DOI":"10.1007\/s11420-017-9557-5","article-title":"Mid-term outcomes of metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty show superiority to all-polyethylene unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty","volume":"13","author":"van der List","year":"2017","journal-title":"HSS J"},{"issue":"6","key":"r4-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100324","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jisako.2024.100324","article-title":"Polyethylene wear in metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental knee prostheses","volume":"9","author":"Makaram","year":"2024","journal-title":"J ISAKOS"},{"issue":"6","key":"r5-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"786","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.97B6.35433","article-title":"A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee","volume":"97-B","author":"Hutt","year":"2015","journal-title":"Bone Joint J"},{"issue":"5","key":"r6-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"777","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2010.07.021","article-title":"Metal backing significantly decreases tibial strains in a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty model","volume":"26","author":"Small","year":"2011","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"issue":"6","key":"r7-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"687","DOI":"10.1016\/j.otsr.2013.03.018","article-title":"Do bone loss and reconstruction procedures differ at revision of cemented unicompartmental knee prostheses according to the use of metal-back or all-polyethylene tibial component?","volume":"99","author":"Rouanet","year":"2013","journal-title":"Orthop Traumatol Surg Res"},{"issue":"380","key":"r8-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"108","DOI":"10.1097\/00003086-200011000-00015","article-title":"A randomized comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components","author":"Gioe","year":"2000","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"issue":"1","key":"r9-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"22","DOI":"10.1302\/2046-3758.61.BJR-2016-0142.R1","article-title":"Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model","volume":"6","author":"Scott","year":"2017","journal-title":"Bone Joint Res"},{"issue":"2","key":"r10-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1302\/2046-3758.82.BJR-2018-0186.R2","article-title":"The effect of malalignment on proximal tibial strain in fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison between metal-backed and all-polyethylene components using a validated finite element model","volume":"8","author":"Danese","year":"2019","journal-title":"Bone Joint Res"},{"issue":"7","key":"r11-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"752","DOI":"10.1016\/j.medengphy.2009.02.004","article-title":"Elevated proximal tibial strains following unicompartmental knee replacement: a possible cause of pain","volume":"31","author":"Simpson","year":"2009","journal-title":"Med Eng Phys"},{"issue":"3","key":"r12-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"702","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2015.09.046","article-title":"Changes in bone density in metal-backed and all-polyethylene medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty","volume":"31","author":"Scott","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"key":"r13-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"n71","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.n71","article-title":"The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews","volume":"372","author":"Page","year":"2021","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"1","key":"r14-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"210","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-016-0384-4","article-title":"Rayyan: a web and mobile app for systematic reviews","volume":"5","author":"Ouzzani","year":"2016","journal-title":"Syst Rev"},{"key":"r15-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"l4898","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.l4898","article-title":"RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials","volume":"366","author":"Sterne","year":"2019","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"r16-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"i4919","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.i4919","article-title":"ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions","volume":"355","author":"Sterne","year":"2016","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"1","key":"r17-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1002\/jrsm.1411","article-title":"Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments","volume":"12","author":"McGuinness","year":"2021","journal-title":"Res Synth Methods"},{"issue":"7650","key":"r18-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"924","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.39489.470347.AD","article-title":"GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations","volume":"336","author":"Guyatt","year":"2008","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"12","key":"r19-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3977","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-021-04325-w","article-title":"All-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with increased risks of poorer knee society knee score and lower satisfaction in obese patients","volume":"142","author":"Foo","year":"2022","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"},{"issue":"5","key":"r20-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"468","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0038-1651528","article-title":"Mid-term clinical outcome and reconstruction of posterior tibial slope after UKA","volume":"32","author":"Franz","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Knee Surg"},{"issue":"5","key":"r21-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"585","DOI":"10.1016\/j.knee.2011.09.002","article-title":"Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged","volume":"19","author":"Heyse","year":"2012","journal-title":"Knee"},{"issue":"2","key":"r22-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"174","DOI":"10.1054\/arth.2001.20257","article-title":"Does metal backing improve fixation of tibial component in unicondylar knee arthroplasty? A randomized radiostereometric analysis","volume":"16","author":"Hyldahl","year":"2001","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"issue":"8","key":"r23-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"807","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0036-1597979","article-title":"Use of all-polyethylene tibial components in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty increases the risk of early failure","volume":"30","author":"Koh","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Knee Surg"},{"issue":"12","key":"r24-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3063","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-021-05031-3","article-title":"Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: all-poly versus metal-backed tibial component-a long-term follow-up study","volume":"45","author":"Sessa","year":"2021","journal-title":"Int Orthop"},{"issue":"1","key":"r25-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"43","DOI":"10.1007\/s11420-014-9421-9","article-title":"Onlay tibial implants appear to provide superior clinical results in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty","volume":"11","author":"Gladnick","year":"2015","journal-title":"HSS J"},{"issue":"suppl 2","key":"r26-20250718","first-page":"91","article-title":"Unicondylar knee prosthesis: our experience","volume":"85","author":"Valentini","year":"2014","journal-title":"Acta Biomed"},{"issue":"7","key":"r27-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1548","DOI":"10.1097\/CORR.0000000000001698","article-title":"Do fixed or mobile bearing implants have better survivorship in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry","volume":"479","author":"Kannan","year":"2021","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"issue":"1","key":"r28-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"347","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-023-05055-x","article-title":"Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: does the type of tibial component selected influence implant survival?","volume":"144","author":"Montilla","year":"2024","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"},{"issue":"24","key":"r29-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2195","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.L.01006","article-title":"Surgeon, implant, and patient variables may explain variability in early revision rates reported for unicompartmental arthroplasty","volume":"95","author":"Bini","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"issue":"1","key":"r30-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"108","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.102B1.BJJ-2019-0510.R1","article-title":"Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty","volume":"102-B","author":"Burger","year":"2020","journal-title":"Bone Joint J"},{"issue":"4","key":"r31-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"255","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jisako.2023.03.002","article-title":"Favourable mid-term outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with wider patient selection: a single-centre experience","volume":"8","author":"Gowd","year":"2023","journal-title":"J ISAKOS"},{"issue":"1","key":"r32-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"24","DOI":"10.1186\/s10195-024-00765-3","article-title":"Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up","volume":"25","author":"Piovan","year":"2024","journal-title":"J Orthop Traumatol"},{"issue":"11","key":"r33-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2433","DOI":"10.1007\/s00167-012-2208-y","article-title":"Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different?","volume":"21","author":"Cheng","year":"2013","journal-title":"Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"r34-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"52","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.91B1.20899","article-title":"Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial","volume":"91","author":"Newman","year":"2009","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Br"},{"issue":"10","key":"r35-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1339","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.95B10.31644","article-title":"Proximal tibial strain in medial unicompartmental knee replacements: a biomechanical study of implant design","volume":"95-B","author":"Scott","year":"2013","journal-title":"Bone Joint J"},{"issue":"2","key":"r36-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"109","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0031-1280873","article-title":"Comparison of interface stresses and strains for onlay and inlay unicompartmental tibial components","volume":"24","author":"Walker","year":"2011","journal-title":"J Knee Surg"},{"issue":"7","key":"r37-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2203","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2018.02.003","article-title":"Revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: does the unicompartmental implant (metal-backed vs all-polyethylene) impact the total knee arthroplasty?","volume":"33","author":"Scott","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"issue":"2","key":"r38-20250718","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"218","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0606.R1","article-title":"Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population","volume":"99-B","author":"Hamilton","year":"2017","journal-title":"Bone Joint J"}],"container-title":["JBJS Reviews"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.25.00061","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T13:42:31Z","timestamp":1787751751000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.25.00061"}},"subtitle":["A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,7]]},"references-count":38,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/jbjs.rvw.25.00061","relation":{},"ISSN":["2329-9185"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2329-9185","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,7]]}}}