Oh, what a shocking revelation we have here! In the grand quest to determine whether sticking a new knee joint in with superglue or just jamming it in tight has a better outcome, we’ve stumbled upon some earth-shattering data. Brace yourselves, because this high-stakes game of “Cement or No Cement” in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has reached its climax. We’ve got 14,122 knees on the line, folks—half slathered in cement, the other half going commando—and the results are in!

Drumroll, please… After an intense match-up, meticulously scored by the National Joint Registry’s very own referee system, we find that the three-month periprosthetic fracture rates are practically twinsies: a whopping 0.10% for Team Cemented and an earth-shattering 0.11% for Team Cementless. Who could have predicted such a nail-biter with a difference of 0.01%? (P = 0.80, for those who care about statistical significance, which is apparently no one here.)

But wait, there’s more! If you’ve been holding your breath for the one-year and ten-year stats, you can exhale now. Both teams are sitting pretty at 0.2% and 0.8% respectively. And the hazard ratio? A mind-blowing 1.06 (CI 0.64 to 1.77, P = 0.79). In layman’s terms, that’s “pretty much the same, but let’s pretend it’s important.”

So, what have we learned from this epic battle of the knees? Well, it seems that surgeons might just be a tad more careful when they’re not using cement—like handling a raw egg instead of a hard-boiled one. And the grand takeaway: whether you choose to cement your UKA or not, you’ll probably be fine. But hey, we needed those numbers to sleep at night, right? Now, let’s all give a round of applause for statistics and go about our day!