Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23151366›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of arthroplasty2013

Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty.

Sébastien Lustig, Corey J Scholes, Sam I Oussedik, Vera Kinzel, Myles R J Coolican, David A Parker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. The radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2014
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Rotation in total knee arthroplasty: no difference between patient-specific and conventional instrumentation.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2013
    Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sébastien LustigSydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Chatswood, NSW, Australia.
Corey J Scholes
Sam I Oussedik
Vera Kinzel
Myles R J Coolican
David A Parker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This investigation evaluated the Smith and Nephew VISIONAIRE patient-specific cutting block (PSCB) system for total knee arthroplasty. A consecutive series of 60 patients was recruited. Intraoperative computer navigation was used to evaluate the accuracy of the cutting blocks in the coronal and sagittal planes for the tibia, as well as rotational plane for the femur. The PSCB would have placed 79.3% of the sample within ±3° of the preoperative plan in the coronal plane, while the rotational and sagittal alignment results within ±3° were 77.2% and 54.5% respectively. The VISIONAIRE PSCB system achieved unacceptable accuracy when assessed by computer navigation. There might be many sources of error, but caution is recommended before using this system routinely without objective verification of alignment.

Indexed as

AgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleFemurHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneeReproducibility of ResultsStereotaxic TechniquesSurgery, Computer-AssistedTibia

Identifiers

PMID23151366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.