Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29686970›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of orthopedics2018

Why total knees fail-A modern perspective review.

Zachary C Lum, Alvin K Shieh, Lawrence D Dorr

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of orthopedics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Toughness measures in solid-state composites of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  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

3 authors.

Zachary C LumDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States. zacharylum@gmail.com.
Alvin K ShiehDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States.
Lawrence D DorrDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, the most common mechanism of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failures included aseptic loosening, instability and malalignment. As polyethylene production improved, modes of failure from polyethylene wear and subsequent osteolysis became less prevalent. Newer longitudinal studies report that infection has become the primary acute cause of failure with loosening and instability remaining as the overall greatest reasons for revision. Clinical database and worldwide national registries confirm these reports. With an increasing amount of TKA operations performed in the United States, and with focus on value-based healthcare, it is imperative to understand why total knees fail.

Indexed as

Aseptic loosening total kneePeriprosthetic joint infectionRevision total knee arthroplastyTotal knee arthroplasty failure mechanismTotal knee arthroplasty failure modeTotal knee arthroplasty instability

Identifiers

PMID29686970
PMCPMC5908984

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.