ArticleDer Orthopade2016
[The MyKnee® patient-specific system. Rationale, Technique and Results].
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate three-dimensional component positioning and restoration of overall limb alignment are primary goals in total knee arthroplasty. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is a potential way to improve accuracy of knee reconstruction surgery. However, currently available literature regarding the reliability of PSI shows inconsistent results for limb alignment restoration and component positioning.
objectivesThe purpose of this article is to illustrate the rationale for using PSI in total knee arthroplasty, to demonstrate the surgical technique, and to present our outcome with the MyKnee(®) system.
methodsWe illustrate in detail the logistics and workflow involved in PSI for total knee arthroplasty. Finally, we present clinical and radiological results of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty using the MyKnee(®) system compared to a conventional instrumentation group.
resultsPSI significantly improved accuracy and reduced the number of outliers regarding neutral mechanical alignment restoration as well as three-dimensional component positioning compared to conventional instrumentation. The early clinical outcome was comparable between the two instrumentation groups. However, clinical outcome in the subgroup of patients within ± 3° from neutral mechanical limb alignment was superior to limb alignment outliers.
conclusionThe MyKnee(®) PSI system presents a reliable way to improve the accuracy of mechanical limb alignment restoration and three-dimensional component positioning in total knee arthroplasty. Nonetheless, an adequate surgical technique remains the crucial factor for successful total knee reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27025868What 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.