Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30178169›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2018

Do patient-specific instruments (PSI) for UKA allow non-expert surgeons to achieve the same saw cut accuracy as expert surgeons?

Gareth G Jones, K Logishetty, S Clarke, R Collins, M Jaere, S Harris, J P Cobb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. What future in the treatment of osteochondral knee defects?Annals of translational medicine · 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

7 authors.

Gareth G JonesMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK. ggjones@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3428-8765
K LogishettyMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK.
S ClarkeMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK.
R CollinsMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK.
M JaereMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK.
S HarrisMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK.
J P CobbMSk Lab, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Lab Block Charing Cross Hospital, London, W6 8RF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHigh-volume unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) surgeons have lower revision rates, in part due to improved intra-operative component alignment. This study set out to determine whether PSI might allow non-expert surgeons to achieve the same level of accuracy as expert surgeons. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-four surgical trainees with no prior experience of UKA, and four high-volume UKA surgeons were asked to perform the tibial saw cuts for a medial UKA in a sawbone model using both conventional and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) with the aim of achieving a specified pre-operative plan. Half the participants in each group started with conventional instrumentation, and half with PSI. CT scans of the 76 cut sawbones were then segmented and reliably orientated in space, before saw cut position in the sagittal, coronal and axial planes was measured, and compared to the pre-operative plan.

resultsThe compound error (absolute error in the coronal, sagittal and axial planes combined) for experts using conventional instruments was significantly less than that of the trainees (11.6°±4.0° v 7.7° ±2.3º, p = 0.029). PSI improved trainee accuracy to the same level as experts using conventional instruments (compound error 5.5° ±3.4º v 7.7° ±2.3º, p = 0.396) and patient-specific instruments (compound error 5.5° ±3.4º v 7.3° ±4.1º, p = 0.3). PSI did not improve the accuracy of high-volume surgeons (p = 0.3).

conclusionsIn a sawbone model, PSI allowed inexperienced surgeons to achieve more accurate saw cuts, equivalent to expert surgeons, and thus has the potential to reduce revision rates. The next test will be to determine whether these results can be replicated in a clinical trial.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeClinical CompetenceComputer SimulationHumansKnee JointKnee ProsthesisReproducibility of ResultsSurgeonsSurgery, Computer-AssistedTibiaTomography, X-Ray Computed3D printingPartial knee replacementPatient-specific guidesPatient-specific instrumentationPSIUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID30178169
PMCPMC6182679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.