Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29161930›Full record

Trial reportActa orthopaedica2018

No radiological and clinical advantages with patient-specific positioning guides in total knee replacement.

Justin A M J Van Leeuwen, Finnur Snorrason, Stephan M Röhrl

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06507046 (Robotic Assisted Surgery Comparing Personalized Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment of Total Knee Arthroplasty - A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT06507046 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Robotic Assisted Surgery Comparing Personalized Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment of Total Knee Arthroplasty - A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHelse Møre og Romsdal HFRan2024 to 2035Enrolled152ConditionsKnee OsteoarthritisArmsTotal knee replacement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Tech-trends in orthopedics 2018.Acta orthopaedica · 2018
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Justin A M J Van Leeuwena Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Betanien Hospital , Skien , Norway.
Finnur Snorrasonb Division of Orthopaedic Surgery , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo , Norway.
Stephan M Röhrlb Division of Orthopaedic Surgery , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo , Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOBetanien Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - Although the use of patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs) in total knee replacement (TKR) in theory is promising, the technique has not yet proven its superior- ity compared with the conventional method. We compared radio- logical alignment and clinical outcome between TKR performed with the use of PSPGs and the conventional operation method. Patients and methods - 3 hospitals participated in a prospec- tive trial. 109 patients were randomized to either the conventional method or to the use of PSPGs. Postoperatively a full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph and a postoperative CT scan were taken. On the CT scan the alignments were measured for both the femoral and tibial components in the frontal, sagit- tal, and axial plane. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Eurocol-5D-3L (Eq5D) descriptive system and visual analogue scale (VAS), a pain score (NRS), and range of motion (ROM) were recorded preoperatively, and at 3 months, 1, and 2 years. The operation time and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results - 90 patients were available for postoperative CT mea- surements. A statistically significant difference was found between the conventional TKR instrumentation and the use of PSPGs for the frontal femoral (mean (SD) 0.6° (1.7) vs. -0.3° (2.2), CI 0.08 to 1.69) and tibial (-0.3° (1.5) vs. 0.9° (2.1), CI -1.98 to -0.44) compo- nent angles and for the tibial alignment in the sagittal plane (-3.8° (3.0) vs. -2.2° (2.5), CI -2.72; -0.42). The proportions of outliers were similar between the groups as well as the hip-knee-ankle angle, the KOOS sub scores, the Eq5D, pain (NRS), ROM, opera- tion time, and length of hospital stay. Interpretation - The use of PSPGs requires a preoperative CT scan or MRI and the guides have an additional cost. As this study was not able to prove any extra benefit of the use of PSPGs we recommend the conventional operation method for TKR.

Indexed as

AgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansKnee JointLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29161930
PMCPMC5810839
OpenAlexW2769597301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.