Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28461953›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2016

Revision knee surgery techniques.

Emmanuel Thienpont

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

1 author.

Emmanuel ThienpontUniversity Hospital Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a challenging, complex procedure. A comprehensive understanding of the anatomy, challenges and pitfalls is essential to achieve a good outcome for the patient.This review discusses the determinants of good outcomes of rTKA. These include, among other factors, the choice of the surgical approach, removal of the components, adequate reconstruction of the joint line and posterior condylar offset and the use of offset stems, as well as choosing the appropriate level of constraint.The modularity of many modern knee revision systems can help to address such issues as anatomical mismatch, gap balancing and malalignment.A well-planned surgical approach must be used in rTKA. A thorough understanding of related knee anatomy is essential.The incidence of joint-line elevation after rTKA is high. Contralateral radiographs, as well as algorithms based on the relationship between bony landmarks and the joint line, can help to reconstruct a physiological joint line during rTKA.Modularity added to systems, such as offset stems, are useful enhancements that may further improve the reconstruction of the anatomy.There are several options for managing the patella, with the best choice depending on the status of the patellar component and residual bone stock. Cite this article: Thienpont E. Revision knee surgery techniques.

Indexed as

replacementrevision total knee arthroplastysurgical techniques

Identifiers

PMID28461953
PMCPMC5367533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.