text_1: Partial rather than full knee replacements better for many – report
text_2: This story parrots a news release sent out by Oxford University about a study published in the journal BMJ Open. The study concludes that partial knee replacements would — in many cases — leave patients “better off” than total knee replacements. With no independent reporting, the story glosses over how the study was conducted, what was measured, and what the limitations were. It also didn’t discuss harms of surgery, among other problems. An over-reliance on publicity materials appears to be a pattern — last week the Guardian received a 1-star score from us for a different story that also simply restated what the news release said. Knee replacement surgeries are not uncommon. A 2015 study reported that, as of 2010, there were 4.7 million people in the U.S. who had received a total knee replacement. If partial knee replacement (also called a unicompartmental knee replacement, or UKR) is an option for many patients, and the partial version could improve outcomes and reduce medical costs, then this is a finding with the potential to significantly improve life for patients (and make U.S. insurers happier in the process). However, it’s important to highlight the risks associated with such a decision — even if those risks could potentially be reduced by seeing an increase in partial replacement surgeries over time. The importance of this research is that for some people a less-invasive surgical procedure may be an option, but the choice isn’t quite so clearcut as the researchers imply.