Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28077394›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2017

Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model.

C E H Scott, M J Eaton, R W Nutton, F A Wade, S L Evans, P Pankaj

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C E H ScottSchool of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Alexander Graham Bell Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK chloe.scott@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk.
M J EatonCardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University Institute of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK.
R W NuttonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.
F A WadeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.
S L EvansCardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University Institute of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK.
P PankajSchool of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Alexander Graham Bell Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK.
Cardiff University · GBEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUp to 40% of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revisions are performed for unexplained pain which may be caused by elevated proximal tibial bone strain. This study investigates the effect of tibial component metal backing and polyethylene thickness on bone strain in a cemented fixed-bearing medial UKA using a finite element model (FEM) validated experimentally by digital image correlation (DIC) and acoustic emission (AE). MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of ten composite tibias implanted with all-polyethylene (AP) and metal-backed (MB) tibial components were loaded to 2500 N. Cortical strain was measured using DIC and cancellous microdamage using AE. FEMs were created and validated and polyethylene thickness varied from 6 mm to 10 mm. The volume of cancellous bone exposed to < -3000 µε (pathological loading) and < -7000 µε (yield point) minimum principal (compressive) microstrain and > 3000 µε and > 7000 µε maximum principal (tensile) microstrain was computed.

resultsExperimental AE data and the FEM volume of cancellous bone with compressive strain < -3000 µε correlated strongly: R = 0.947, R

conclusionAP tibial components display greater volumes of pathologically overstrained cancellous bone than MB implants of the same geometry. Increasing AP thickness does not overcome these pathological forces and comes at the cost of greater bone resection.Cite this article: C. E. H. Scott, M. J. Eaton, R. W. Nutton, F. A. Wade, S. L. Evans, P. Pankaj. Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:22-30. DOI:10.1302/2046-3758.61.BJR-2016-0142.R1.

Indexed as

Bone strainFinite element analysisUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID28077394
PMCPMC5301904
OpenAlexW2600475413

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.