ArticleDer Orthopade2016
[Supramacroparticulate polyethylene in inflammation of synovial-like interface membranes: Characterization and suggested nomenclature].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe identification of particles of prosthesis material components in the histopathological diagnosis of synovialitis is of great importance in the evaluation of implant failure. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn histopathological particle algorithms, polyethylene (PE) particles with a maximum length of less than 100 µm are designated with the term macroparticles; however, a systematic investigation and characterization are lacking.
resultsIn SLIM knee specimens (n = 24) a minimum value of 210 µm and a maximum value of 2100 µm were measured; the mathematical mean length varied between 235 µm and 1416 µm. In SLIM hip specimens (n = 11) the minimum value was 290 µm and the maximum value was 1806 µm; the mean length varied between 353 and 1726 µm. Because of this conspicuous size, and to distinguish from PE macroparticles, the designation PE supra-macroparticulate is suggested. This new terminology acknowledges the fact that these PE particles are visible under magnification (e.g., × 12.5) and also macroscopically. The particles were also indirectly proven as there were completely separate and optically clear, column-shaped cavities corresponding to the shape of the PE particles (PE vacuoles). The life of the prosthesis is highly variable at between 12 and 300 months. In all cases loosening of the prosthesis, misalignment of the PE components, and/or damage to the PE inlay occurred.
conclusionThe cause and existence of these supra-macroparticulate PE particles (more than 100 µm) is still unclear. A mechanical malfunction seems probable and should be discussed. In prostheses with short lives the proof of supra-macroparticulate PE in SLIM could be a sign of an early mechanical problem. In the wider histopathological particle algorithm supra-macroparticulate PE was considered to fall in the category of macroparticles and should be considered in the histopathological diagnosis of implant failure.
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.