Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30997039›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2019

Analysis of the Attune tibial tray backside: A comparative retrieval study.

A Cerquiglini, J Henckel, H Hothi, P Allen, J Lewis, A Eskelinen, J Skinner, M T Hirschmann, A J Hart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Retrieval analysis in total knee arthroplasty.World journal of orthopedics · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Does lucency equate to revision? A five-year retrospective review of Attune and Triathlon total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. No difference in radiolucent lines after TKA: a matched-pair analysis of the classic implant and its evolutional design.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020
    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

9 authors.

A CerquigliniInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
J HenckelInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
H HothiInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
P AllenPrincess Alexandra NHS Trust, Harlow, UK.
J LewisBMI Goring Hall Hospital, Goring-by-Sea, West Sussex, UK.
A EskelinenThe Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland.
J SkinnerInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
M T HirschmannDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Liestal, Laufen), Bruderholz, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
A J HartInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Attune total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been used in over 600 000 patients worldwide. Registry data show good clinical outcome; however, concerns over the cement-tibial interface have been reported. We used retrieval analysis to give further insight into this controversial topic.

methodsWe examined 12 titanium (Ti) PFC Sigma implants, eight cobalt-chromium (CoCr) PFC Sigma implants, eight cobalt-chromium PFC Sigma rotating platform (RP) implants, and 11 Attune implants. We used a peer-reviewed digital imaging method to quantify the amount of cement attached to the backside of each tibial tray. We then measured: 1) the size of tibial tray thickness, tray projections, peripheral lips, and undercuts; and 2) surface roughness (Ra) on the backside and keel of the trays. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate differences between the two designs.

resultsThere was no evidence of cement attachment on any of the 11 Attune trays examined. There were significant differences between Ti and CoCr PFC Sigma implants and Attune designs (p < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between CoCr PFC Sigma RP and Attune designs (p > 0.05). There were significant differences in the design features between the investigated designs (p < 0.05).

conclusionThe majority of the earliest PFC Sigma designs showed evidence of cement, while all of the retrieved Attune trays and the majority of the RP PFC trays in this study had no cement attached. This may be attributable to the design differences of these implants, in particular in relation to the cement pockets. Our results may help explain a controversial aspect related to cement attachment in a recently introduced TKA design.

Indexed as

Implant-cement interfaceRetrieval analysisTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID30997039
PMCPMC6446526

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.