ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019
Noninvasive navigated assessment of the lower limb axis prior to knee arthroplasty: a feasibility study.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to assess accuracy and repeatability of a noninvasive navigated (NIN) measurement of the lower limb axes by comparison with the conventional, invasive navigated (IN) technique. The tested hypothesis was that NIN measure will significantly differ from IN measure when performed on a supine patient under general anesthesia just prior to knee arthroplasty. The accuracy study involved 20 cases. The following measures were performed with both systems: maximal extension angle, coronal mechanical femoro-tibial angle at the previously assessed maximal extension angle, coronal mechanical femoro-tibial angle at 30° of knee flexion. NIN and IN measures were compared with the appropriate statistical tests. The repeatability study involved 14 cases. The same measures were performed with the NIN system twice by two independent observers. The intra- and inter-observer variability was assessed by the calculation of the intra-class correlation coefficient. After correction for the systematic biases, the differences between the two systems were not significant. A good correlation, a good coherence and an excellent agreement between NIN and IN measures of maximal extension angle and coronal femoro-tibial mechanical angle at maximal extension. But measures at 30° of flexion were inconsistent. The NIN system can be considered as an accurate and precise tool for the assessment of the knee extension angle and the coronal deformation at maximal extension prior to knee arthroplasty. But this system is less accurate and less repeatable when measuring coronal femoro-tibial mechanical angle at 30° of flexion and should not be used for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30631945What 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.