Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28831554›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2018

The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study.

Abtin Alvand, Tanvir Khan, Cathy Jenkins, Jonathan L Rees, William F Jackson, Christopher A F Dodd, David W Murray, Andrew J Price

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

8 authors.

Abtin AlvandNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. abtin.alvand@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6069-978X
Tanvir KhanNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Cathy JenkinsNuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Jonathan L ReesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
William F JacksonNuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Christopher A F DoddNuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
David W MurrayNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Andrew J PriceNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Old Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been proposed as a means of improving surgical accuracy and ease of implantation during technically challenging procedures such as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of implantation and functional outcome of mobile-bearing medial UKAs implanted with and without PSI by experienced UKA surgeons.

methodsMobile-bearing medial UKAs were implanted in 43 patients using either PSI guides or conventional instrumentation. Intra-operative measurements, meniscal bearing size implanted, and post-operative radiographic analyses were performed to assess component positioning. Functional outcome was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

resultsPSI guides could not be used in three cases due to concerns regarding accuracy and registration onto native anatomy, particularly on the tibial side. In general, similar component alignment and positioning was achieved using the two systems (n.s. for coronal/sagittal alignment and tibial coverage). The PSI group had greater tibial slope (p = 0.029). The control group had a higher number of optimum size meniscal bearing inserted (95 vs 52%; p = 0.001). There were no differences in OKS improvements (n.s).

conclusionComponent positioning for the two groups was similar for the femur but less accurate on the tibial side using PSI, often with some unnecessarily deep resections of the tibial plateau. Although PSI was comparable to conventional instrumentation based on OKS improvements at 12 months, we continue to use conventional instrumentation for UKA at our institution until further improvements to the PSI guides can be demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level I.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalJoint DiseasesKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Specific ModelingProspective StudiesRecovery of FunctionSurgery, Computer-AssistedArthroplastyKneePatient-specific instrumentationUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID28831554
PMCPMC5966491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.