ArticleKnee surgery & related research2018
Comparison of Revision Rates Due to Aseptic Loosening between High-Flex and Conventional Knee Prostheses.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A high-flexion design total knee prosthesis: a ten to twelve-year follow-up study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of High-Flexion Design Total Knee Arthroplasty with a Short Posterior Flange.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024Article
- Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the knee: culture-negative versus culture-positive.Knee surgery & related research · 2021Article
- The High Flex Total Knee Arthroplasty-Higher Incidence of Aseptic Loosening and No Benefit in Comparison to Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum 16-Years Follow-Up Results.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose was to evaluate and compare the revision rate due to aseptic loosening between a high-flex prosthesis and a conventional prosthesis. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo thousand seventy-eight knees (1,377 patients) with at least 2 years of follow-up after total knee arthroplasty were reviewed. Two types of implants were selected (LPS-Flex and LPS, Zimmer) to compare revision and survival rates and sites of loosened prosthesis component.
resultsThe revision rate of the LPS-Flex (4.9%) was significantly higher than that of the conventional prosthesis (0.6%) (p＜0.001). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 98.9%, 96.2% and 92.0%, respectively, for the LPS-Flex and 99.8%, 98.5% and 93.5%, respectively, for the LPS. The survival rate of the high-flex prosthesis was significantly lower than that of the conventional prosthesis, especially in the mid-term period (range, 5 to 10 years; p=0.002). The loosening rate of the femoral component was significantly higher in the LPS-Flex prosthesis (p=0.001).
conclusionsThe LPS-Flex had a higher revision rate due to aseptic loosening than the LPS prosthesis in the large population series with a long follow-up. The LPS-Flex should be used carefully considering the risk of femoral component aseptic loosening in the mid-term (range, 5 to 10 years) follow-up period after initial operation.
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.