Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26231153›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2017

A matched-pair comparison of inlay and onlay trochlear designs for patellofemoral arthroplasty: no differences in clinical outcome but less progression of osteoarthritis with inlay designs.

Matthias J Feucht, Matthias Cotic, Knut Beitzel, Julia F Baldini, Gebhart Meidinger, Philip B Schöttle, Andreas B Imhoff

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Survivorship and functional outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. [Patellofemoral arthroplasty].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2017
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. [Patellofemoral joint replacement: onlay or inlay?]Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matthias J FeuchtDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Matthias CoticDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Knut BeitzelDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Julia F BaldiniDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Gebhart MeidingerDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Philip B SchöttleDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Andreas B ImhoffDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. a.imhoff@lrz.tum.de.
Technical University of Munich · DEBerufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Murnau · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare clinical and radiographic results after isolated patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) using either a second-generation inlay or onlay trochlear design. The hypothesis was that an inlay design will produce better clinical results and less progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) compared to an onlay design.

methodsFifteen consecutive patients undergoing isolated PFA with an onlay design trochlear component (Journey™ PFJ, Smith & Nephew) were matched with 15 patients after isolated PFA with an inlay design trochlear component (HemiCAP

resultsConversion to total knee arthroplasty was necessary in one patient within each group, leaving 14 patients per group for final evaluation. The mean follow-up was 26 months in the inlay group and 25 months in the onlay group (n.s.). Both groups displayed significant improvements of all clinical scores (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the clinical outcome and reoperation rate. No significant progression of tibiofemoral OA was observed in the inlay group, whereas 53 % of the onlay group showed progression of medial and/or lateral tibiofemoral OA (p = 0.009).

conclusionIsolated PFA using either a second-generation inlay or onlay trochlear component significantly improves functional outcome scores and pain. The theoretical advantages of an inlay design did not result in better clinical outcome scores; however, progression of tibiofemoral OA was significantly less common in patients with an inlay trochlear component. This implant design may therefore improve long-term results and survival rates after isolated PFA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisAdultAgedArthroplastyDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePatellofemoral JointRadiographyReoperationRetrospective StudiesHemiCAP WaveInlayJourney PFJOnlayPatellofemoral arthritisPatellofemoral arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID26231153
OpenAlexW1022982213

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.