Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2010
Tantalum is a good bone graft substitute in tibial tubercle advancement.
Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced surface modification techniques for titanium implants: a review of osteogenic and antibacterial strategies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Biocompatible Porous Tantalum Metal Plates in the Treatment of Tibial Fracture.Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPorous tantalum is reportedly a good substitute for structural bone graft in several applications. So far, its use has not been reported in tibial tuberosity anteriorization (TTA) for treatment of isolated degenerative chondral lesions of the patellofemoral joint. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether the use of this material would produce similar standardized functional scores, pain (VAS), fusion rates, complications, and patient satisfaction to those for bone graft. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a randomized, controlled trial in 101 patients (108 knees) scheduled for TTA comparing a porous tantalum implant (57 knees) with an autologous local tibial bone graft (51 knees). The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 6.2 years; range, 5-8 years).
resultsAt the last followup, clinical scores, fusion rates, and maintenance of the anteriorization either were better or similar for the TTA using the tantalum implant depending on the respective parameter. The operative technique was easier and shorter with the tantalum device. Complication and failure rates were greater using bone graft. Patient satisfaction was greater using the tantalum implant.
conclusionsPorous tantalum provided a reasonable alternative to bone graft in TTA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.