Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24604110›Full record

Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2014

No benefit of patient-specific instrumentation in TKA on functional and gait outcomes: a randomized clinical trial.

Matthew P Abdel, Sébastien Parratte, Guillaume Blanc, Matthieu Ollivier, Vincent Pomero, Elke Viehweger, Jean-Noël A Argenson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Matthew P AbdelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sébastien Parratte
Guillaume Blanc
Matthieu Ollivier
Vincent Pomero
Elke Viehweger
Jean-Noël A Argenson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough some clinical reports suggest patient-specific instrumentation in TKA may improve alignment, reduce surgical time, and lower hospital costs, it is unknown whether it improves pain- and function-related outcomes and gait. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We hypothesized that TKA performed with patient-specific instrumentation would improve patient-reported outcomes measured by validated scoring tools and level gait as ascertained with three-dimensional (3-D) analysis compared with conventional instrumentation 3 months after surgery.

methodsWe randomized 40 patients into two groups using either patient-specific instrumentation or conventional instrumentation. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 months after surgery. Assessment tools included subjective functional outcome and quality-of-life (QOL) scores using validated questionnaires (New Knee Society Score(©) [KSS], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], and SF-12). In addition, gait analysis was evaluated with a 3-D system during level walking. The study was powered a priori at 90% to detect a difference in walking speed of 0.1 m/second, which was considered a clinically important difference, and in a post hoc analysis at 80% to detect a difference of 10 points in KSS.

resultsThere were improvements from preoperatively to 3 months postoperatively in functional scores, QOL, and knee kinematic and kinetic gait parameters during level walking. However, there was no difference between the patient-specific instrumentation and conventional instrumentation groups in KSS, KOOS, SF-12, or 3-D gait parameters.

conclusionsOur observations suggest that patient-specific instrumentation does not confer a substantial advantage in early functional or gait outcomes after TKA. It is possible that differences may emerge, and this study does not allow one to predict any additional variances in the intermediate followup period from 6 months to 1 year postoperatively. However, the goals of the study were to investigate the recovery period as early pain and functional outcomes are becoming increasingly important to patients and surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

GaitKnee ProsthesisProsthesis DesignTreatment OutcomeAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedPhysical ExaminationRecovery of FunctionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24604110
PMCPMC4079860

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.