ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2018
Are contemporary femoral components sizing and design likely to affect functional results in TKA? A mathematical model of an implanted knee to predict knee forces.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of positioning of femoral component in the anterior-posterior direction on postoperative anterior pain in TKA.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study is aimed to investigate the effects of the choice of femoral and tibial components on several mechanical outputs that might be associated with total knee replacement surgery outcomes using a validated computational model: the Kansas knee simulator.
methodsTwo models from the same range of implants were taken into account: Model 1, the femoral component fitted the femoral epiphysis, with physiological positioning of the articulating surface using a 10-mm-thick tibial component, and in Model 2, the femoral component was 4 mm smaller than in Model 1, and a 14-mm-thick tibial component was used with a similar tibial resection and the tibio-femoral joint line was 4 mm more proximal to compensate the increased posterior bone resection and maintain proper soft-tissue tension in flexion. Changes in reaction forces and contact pressures between the components, changes in extensor muscle forces and changes in patello-femoral joint kinematics during walking gait have been studied.
resultsWhile the computational model predicted that most kinematic and kinetic outputs, including tibio-femoral and patello-femoral joint motions, contact forces, pressures and areas, were similar for Model 1 and Model 2, and a dramatic difference has been found in the extensor muscle forces necessary to flex and extend the knee. To reproduce the same knee motion with a knee reconstructed as in Model 2, a patient would need to generate approximately 40% greater extensor muscle force throughout the gait cycle in order to do so.
conclusionAs a consequence of such a large increase in the extensor muscle force, the knee motions would probably be compromised and, subsequently, a patient with a knee reconstructed as in Model 2 would be less likely to be able to reproduce normal knee function and therefore more likely to report poor outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.