Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30923964›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019

Rotational component alignment in patient-specific total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional cutting instrument.

Nuttawut Chanalithichai, Nattapol Tammachote, Chane Jitapunkul, Supakit Kanitnate

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nuttawut ChanalithichaiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Thammasat University, 99 Moo 18, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand.
Nattapol TammachoteDepartment of Orthopaedics, Thammasat University, 99 Moo 18, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand. tammachotemd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1978-3490
Chane JitapunkulDepartment of Orthopaedics, Thammasat University, 99 Moo 18, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand.
Supakit KanitnateDepartment of Orthopaedics, Thammasat University, 99 Moo 18, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand.
Thammasat University · TH

Funding

Thammasat University NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough many studies investigated the accuracy of customized cutting block (CCB), the data on rotational alignment are still lacking. The study aimed to assess whether CCB improved the component rotational position compared with conventional cutting instrument (CCI) using computed tomography scanning.

methodsEighty-six of 102 total knee arthroplasties from the previous randomized study were analyzed. The outcomes were rotational position of the femoral and tibial components, frequency of outliers and intra-class correlation coefficient.

resultsThe mean femoral component rotation was not different between CCB versus CCI: 0.9° ± 0.8° versus 1.1° ± 1.1° (P = 0.29). Both groups had similar outlier frequencies: 2% (CCB) versus 2% (CCI) (P = 0.74). CCB had nearly 1° less mean tibial component deviation compared with CCI (P < 0.001): (1) dorsal tangent reference (DTR): 0.7° ± 0.8° versus 1.5° ± 1.0°, and (2) tibial trans-epicondylar reference (TTR): 0.5° ± 0.9° versus 1.4° ± 1.1°. Outlier frequencies were similar: (1) DTR: 0% CCB versus 5% CCI (P = 0.24), and (2) TTR: 5% in CCB versus 12% CCI (P = 0.20). Measurements based on tibial tubercle showed that CCB had ~ 1.4° less mean tibial component deviation compared with CCI: 0.3° ± 1.4° versus 1.7° ± 1.6° (P < 0.001) with a corresponding, less frequency of outliers: 0% versus 19% (P = 0.002). However, there was poor intra-observer reproducibility (0.61).

conclusionsCCB did not improve femoral component rotational alignment compared with CCI nor affect outlier frequency, but it marginally improved the accuracy of tibial rotational alignment. The tibial tubercle reference point had poor intra-observer reproducibility.

Indexed as

Knee JointPatient-Specific ModelingPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical InstrumentsAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansKnee ProsthesisMaleOsteoarthritisOutcome Assessment, Health CareRange of Motion, ArticularTomography, X-Ray ComputedConventional cutting instrumentCustomized cutting blockRotational alignmentTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID30923964
OpenAlexW2929958637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.