ArticleInternational orthopaedics2018
Comparison between uncemented and cemented fixation for the tibial component in distal femoral replacement: a clinical and radiological study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel radiological index uses the inner canal diameter and the Citak classification index to predict risk factor for aseptic loosening following hinged total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Advances in tumour endoprostheses: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesWe performed a retrospective, cohort study to compare uncemented tibial fixation with cemented tibial fixation in distal femoral replacement (DFR).
methodsSixty-two cases with uncemented tibial fixation and 58 cases with cemented tibial fixation were included. Inter-group comparisons were performed for baseline data, oncological and prosthetic outcomes, and changes of cortical thickness of tibial diaphysis. Radiological signs of bone adaptations around the uncemented tibial stem were identified through evaluation of plain films during follow-up.
resultsUncemented tibial fixation shortened operative duration by 26 minutes, achieved equivalent oncological and prosthetic outcomes, and helped preserve anterior cortical thickness of tibia compared with the cemented counterpart after a mean follow-up of over 40 months. Radiological signs of osseointegration and reactive line were observed in 64.3 and 17.9% cases with uncemented tibial fixation. The two signs had different patterns of distribution and no significant predisposing factors could be identified.
conclusionsFor DFR, the uncemented tibial fixation was safe and effective in functional reconstruction and in preservation of anterior cortex of tibial diaphysis. It could achieve osseointegration and might permit adaptive micromotion of the tibial stem post-operatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level III Therapeutic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29478210What 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.