Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27520882›Full record

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

Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA.

Justin A M J van Leeuwen, Stephan M Röhrl

Abstract read
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Justin A M J van LeeuwenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Betanien Hospital, Skien, Norway. justin.van.leeuwen@betanienhospital.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-6768
Stephan M RöhrlDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate whether the intended preoperative planning corresponded with the postoperative component position after medial UKA using patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs).

methodsTwenty-five consecutive UKAs performed with the PSPG technique (Signature™) were included. Two independent observers performed postoperative CT measurements. The preoperative angles for the femoral component were defined in the frontal plane as 0°. In the first eight cases, a femoral component with single peg was inserted, and the flexion of the femoral component was set to 5°. In the last 17 cases, a twin-peg component was used and flexion set to 10°. In the axial plane, the femoral component was on average set at 2.5° internal rotation. The preoperative tibial component angles in the frontal and axial plane were defined as 0° and in the sagittal plane as 4° in flexion.

resultsThe postoperative femoral component angles were on average 0.8° of valgus (SD 3.2, range 12.2° valgus to 5.1° varus, n.s., CI -2.1 to 0.6), 5.0° of flexion (SD 3.9, range 10.2° flexion to 6.0° extension, p = 0.001, CI -5.3 to -1.5) and 4.0° of internal rotation (SD 1.7, range 1.4° to 6.9° int.rot., p < 0.001, CI -4.7 to -3.4). The tibial component angles were on average 3.0° of varus (SD 1.9, range 1.3° valgus to 6.8° varus, p < 0.001, CI 2.2 to 3.8), 3.2° of flexion (SD 2.4°, 6.7° flex to 1.8° ext, n.s., CI -0.2 to 1.7) and 2.7° of internal rotation (SD 7.0, range 16.6° int.rot. to 10.7° ext.rot., n.s., CI -5.6 to 0.2).

conclusionThis study showed no agreement between preoperative planning and postoperative component alignment (p < 0.05) for the femoral component angle in sagittal and axial plane and for the tibial component angle in the coronal plane. Although the results did not show significant difference for the tibial component angle in the axial plane, a considerable range of the component angles was found varying from 17° internal to 11° external rotation. This study suggests that the use of PSPGs for UKA does not lead to consistent component position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

Patient PositioningAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansKnee JointKnee ProsthesisMalePostoperative PeriodRange of Motion, ArticularRotationTibiaAlignmentComponent angleCTPatient-specific positioning guidesUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID27520882

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.