Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23677140›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2014

Do tibiofemoral contact point and posterior condylar offset influence outcome and range of motion in a mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty?

G J P Geijsen, P J C Heesterbeek, G van Stralen, P G Anderson, A B Wymenga

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Different femorotibial contact points between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs do not show clinical impact.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2015
    Article
  11. Control of paradoxical kinematics in posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty by increasing posterior femoral offset.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

G J P GeijsenSint Maartens Clinic, Hengstdal 3, 6574 NA, Ubbergen, The Netherlands, geysen@hotmail.com.
P J C Heesterbeek
G van Stralen
P G Anderson
A B Wymenga

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe posterior condylar offset (PCO) and the tibiofemoral contact point (CP) have been reported as important factors that can influence range of motion and clinical outcome after total knee arthroplasty. A mobile-bearing knee implant with an anterior posterior gliding insert would in theory be more sensitive for changes in PCO and CP. For this reason, we analysed the PCO and CP and the relation with outcome and range of motion in 132 patients from a prospectively documented cohort in this type of implant.

methodsThe prosthesis used was a posterior cruciate retaining AP gliding mobile-bearing total knee replacement (SAL II Sulzer Medica, Switzerland). In 132 knees, the pre- and postoperative PCO and postoperative CP were evaluated. Measurements were made on X-rays of the knee taken in approximately 90° of flexion and with less than 3-mm rotation of the femur condyles. The outcome parameters, range of motion (ROM) and the knee society score (KSS), for each knee were determined preoperatively and at 5-year follow-up.

resultsThe mean KSS improved from 91 to 161 at 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001) and the mean ROM from 102 to 108 (p < 0.05). The mean PCO difference (postoperative PCO-preoperative PCO) was--0.05 mm (SD 2.15). The CP was on average 53.9% (SD 5.5%). ROM was different between the 3 PCO groups (p = 0.05): patients with 3 or more mm decrease in PCO had the best postoperative ROM (p = 0.047). There was no statistical difference between the postoperative ROM between patients with a stable PCO and those with an increased PCO. There was no correlation between the difference in PCO and the difference in ROM; R Pearson = -0.056. There was no difference in postoperative ROM or postoperative total KSS between CP <60% and CP >60%: p = 0.22, p = 0.99, for ROM and KSS, respectively. Scatter plots showed uniform clouds of values: increase or decrease in PCO and CP had no significant influence on ROM or KSS.

conclusionThe hypotheses that a stable PCO and a more natural CP increase postoperative ROM and improve clinical outcome could not be confirmed. On the contrary, a decreased PCO seemed to improve knee flexion. Furthermore, a relationship between PCO and CP could not be found. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective cohort study, Level II.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisRange of Motion, ArticularAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthritis, RheumatoidArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee InjuriesKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneeProspective Studies

Identifiers

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.