Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29105532›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2018

Early aseptic loosening of a mobile-bearing total knee replacement.

Ines Kutzner, Geir Hallan, Paul Johan Høl, Ove Furnes, Øystein Gøthesen, Wender Figved, Peter Ellison

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. No difference between mobile and fixed bearing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. The effects of tourniquet on cement penetration in total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ines Kutznera Department of Clinical Medicine , University of Bergen , Norway.
Geir Hallanb The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen , Norway.
Paul Johan Høla Department of Clinical Medicine , University of Bergen , Norway.
Ove Furnesa Department of Clinical Medicine , University of Bergen , Norway.
Øystein Gøthesena Department of Clinical Medicine , University of Bergen , Norway.
Wender Figvede Orthopedic Department , Baerum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust , Norway.
Peter Ellisona Department of Clinical Medicine , University of Bergen , Norway.
Haukeland University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NOBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEVestre Viken Hospital Trust · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - Registry-based studies have reported an increased risk of aseptic tibial loosening for the cemented Low Contact Stress (LCS) total knee replacement compared with other cemented designs; however, the reasons for this have not been established. We made a retrieval analysis with the aim of identifying the failure mechanism. Patients and methods - We collected implants, cement, tissue, blood, and radiographs from 32 failed LCS Complete cases. Damage to the tibial baseplate and insert was assessed. Exposure to wear products was quantified in 11 cases through analysis of periprosthetic tissue and blood. Implant alignment and bone cement thickness was compared with a control group of 43 non-revised cases. Results - Loosening of the tibial baseplate was the reason for revision in 25 retrievals, occurring at the implant-cement interface in 16 cases. Polishing was observed on the lower surface of the baseplate and correlated to the level of cobalt, chromium, and zirconium in the blood. No evidence of abnormally high polyethylene wear was present. For each 1 mm increase in cement thickness the odds of failure due to aseptic loosening decreased by 61%. Greater varus alignment was associated with a shorter time to failure. The roughness, Ra, of a new LCS baseplate's lower surface was 3.7 (SD 0.7) µm. Interpretation - Debonding of the tibial component at the implant-cement interface was the predominant cause of tibial aseptic loosening. A thin cement layer may partly explain the poor performance. Furthermore, the comparatively low tibial surface roughness and the lack of a keeled stem may have played a role in the failures observed.

Indexed as

Prosthesis FailureAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansKnee ProsthesisMaleMiddle AgedNorway

Identifiers

PMID29105532
PMCPMC5810837
OpenAlexW2767726120

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.