ArticleJoints
Analysis of differences in bone removal during femoral box osteotomy for primary total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Joints. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of laser beam intensity profile on deep bone ablation in laser osteotomy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Does the anatomic design of total knee prosthesis allow for a better component fit than its nonanatomic predecessor? A matched cohort Study.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Sister, Sister! Siblings With Simultaneous Early Femoral Insufficiency Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposethis study was conducted to compare the quantity of intercondylar bone removed during femoral box osteotomy for implantation of three contemporary posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty designs: Sigma PS (DePuy), Vanguard (Biomet) and Persona (Zimmer).
methodswe compared the maximum volumetric bone resection required for the housing of the PS mechanism of these three designs. Bone removal by each PS box cutting jig was three-dimensionally measured. The differences between the three designs were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for pairwise comparisons. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.
resultsfor small-size implants, the average box osteotomy volume of Persona was significantly smaller than the Vanguard and Sigma PS volumes (p=0.003). The mean difference between Vanguard and Sigma PS (p=0.01) was also significant. For medium size implants, the mean difference between Persona and Sigma PS (p=0.008) and the mean difference between Vanguard and Sigma PS (p=0.01) were statistically significant. For large size implants, the mean difference between Vanguard and Sigma PS (p=0.01) and the mean difference between Sigma PS and Persona (p=0.008) were statistically significant.
conclusionsirrespective of implant size, the Persona cutting jig always resected significantly less bone than did Vanguard and Sigma PS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: although this study does not establish any clinical relevance of removing more or less bone at primary TKA, its results suggest that if a PS design is indicated, it is preferable to select a model which resects less distal femoral bone.
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.