ArticleBone & joint research2014
Validation of a model-based measurement of the minimum insert thickness of knee prostheses: a retrieval study.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Similar polyethylene wear between cemented and cementless Oxford medial UKA: a 5-year follow-up randomized controlled trial on 79 patients using radiostereometry.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Trial
- Early monitoring of inlay wear after total knee arthroplasty on plain radiographs using model-based wear measurement.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Bearing Thickness Is Not a Predictive Factor for Damage and Penetration in Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty-A Retrieval Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWear of polyethylene inserts plays an important role in failure of total knee replacement and can be monitored in vivo by measuring the minimum joint space width in anteroposterior radiographs. The objective of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to compare the accuracy and precision of a new model-based method with the conventional method by analysing the difference between the minimum joint space width measurements and the actual thickness of retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts.
methodBefore revision, the minimum joint space width values and their locations on the insert were measured in 15 fully weight-bearing radiographs. These measurements were compared with the actual minimum thickness values and locations of the retrieved tibial inserts after revision.
resultsThe mean error in the model-based minimum joint space width measurement was significantly smaller than the conventional method for medial condyles (0.50 vs 0.94 mm, p < 0.01) and for lateral condyles (0.06 vs 0.34 mm, p = 0.02). The precision (standard deviation of the error) of the methods was similar (0.84 vs 0.79 mm medially and both 0.46 mm laterally). The distance between the true minimum joint space width locations and the locations from the model-based measurements was less than 10 mm in the medial direction in 12 cases and less in the lateral direction in 13 cases.
conclusionThe model-based minimum joint space width measurement method is more accurate than the conventional measurement with the same precision. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:289-96.
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.