Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30967699›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics

New Instrumentation Improves Patient Satisfaction and Component Positioning for Mobile-Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement.

Rajesh Malhotra, Vijay Kumar, Naman Wahal, Arnaud Clavé, James A Kennedy, David W Murray, Hemant Pandit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Rajesh MalhotraDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Vijay KumarDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Naman WahalDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Arnaud ClavéNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
James A KennedyNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David W MurrayNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hemant PanditNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR) has achieved excellent functional outcomes and long term survivorship in many single center and single surgeon series. However, in national registries, the failure rates are up to three times higher than total knee replacement. This is at least in part due to difficulty experienced by low-volume surgeons in implanting the prosthesis accurately. A new instrumentation system (Microplasty) was introduced to help surgeons achieve better component positioning, however, it is not known whether the new instruments achieve that goal. This study investigates whether the new system achieves better component positioning and whether it improves the clinical outcomes when compared to the existing instruments. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective cohort study compared 50 consecutive OUKR implanted using the conventional Phase 3 instrumentation with 100 consecutive OUKR implanted using the new Microplasty instrumentation. Component orientation was measured on postoperative radiographs, and the percentage outside the recommended range was identified. Intraoperative data and retrospectively collected clinical data were also analyzed.

resultsFemoral component alignment improved significantly, and there were no outliers in the Microplasty group. Although there were fewer tibial component alignment outliers with Microplasty, the difference was not significant. The intraoperative incidence of tibial recut, patient satisfaction and patient expectations was significantly better in the Microplasty group. The Oxford Knee Scores were also better with Microplasty, however, the difference was not significant.

conclusionMicroplasty instrumentation helps the surgeon achieve optimal component positioning and reduces the need for tibial recut. The clinical outcomes are also better with the Microplasty instrumentation.

Indexed as

AlignmentMicroplastyoutcomesunicompartmental knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID30967699
PMCPMC6415557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.