Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23842630›Full record

Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2014

Does computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty improve the overall component position and patient function?

Charlotte L Allen, Gary J Hooper, Byron J Oram, J Elizabeth Wells

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Early effectiveness of computer navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Knee arthroplasty today.International orthopaedics · 2014
    Article
  18. A Review on the Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis.International journal of chronic diseases · 2013
    Review
  19. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte L AllenOrthopaedic Department, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand, charlotte.allen@gmail.com.
Gary J Hooper
Byron J Oram
J Elizabeth Wells
Christchurch Hospital · NZUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere remains controversy as to whether computer-navigated total knee replacement (TKR) improves the overall prosthesis alignment and patient function. The aim of this study was to determine whether computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty provides superior prosthesis positioning when compared to a conventional jig-assisted total knee replacement and whether this affected the functional outcome.

methodsThis prospective, randomised controlled study compared computer navigated and conventional jig-assisted total knee replacement in 37 patients who underwent bilateral TKR. A quantitative assessment of the spatial positioning of the implant in the 74 total knee replacements was determined using a low-dose dual-beam CT scanning technique. This resulted in six parameters of alignment that were compared. Functional outcomes using the high activity arthroplasty score and Knee Society score were assessed pre-operatively, postoperatively, at three years and at five years. Patients also indicated which knee they felt was subjectively the best.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the prosthesis alignment between both groups and the number of outliers was not decreased with navigation. All function scores improved from pre-operative to postoperative but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at five years. At five years, 40.6% of patients thought their jig-assisted knee was the better knee compared with 21.9% their computer assisted knee and 37.5% of patients who felt they were the same.

conclusionComputer-assisted implantation of total knee replacements does not offer a significant advantage in prosthesis alignment. There was no difference in functional outcome or subjective "best knee" between the computer-assisted or jig-assisted knee.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemurFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee JointMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneeProspective StudiesProsthesis FittingRange of Motion, ArticularRecovery of FunctionSurgery, Computer-AssistedTibia

Identifiers

PMID23842630
PMCPMC3923953
OpenAlexW2048686940

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.