Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31079179›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2019

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in association with medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrospective study comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of two different implant design.

Andrea Tecame, Roberto Savica, Michele Attilio Rosa, Paolo Adravanti

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea TecameDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy. andrea.tecame@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9107-2792
Roberto SavicaDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, School of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Messina, Piazza Pugliatti 1, Messina, Italy.
Michele Attilio RosaDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, School of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Messina, Piazza Pugliatti 1, Messina, Italy.
Paolo AdravantiDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Città di Parma Clinic, Piazzale Athos Maestri 5, Parma, Italy.
University of Messina · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) combined with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has recently been suggested as a feasible treatment option for young and active patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) and ACL deficiency. The aim of this study is to evaluate retrospectively the outcomes of two different implant designs in patients with medial OA secondary to traumatic ACL rupture, who underwent combined ACL reconstruction and unicompartmental knee replacement.

methodsFrom January 2007, to December 2013, 24 patients with medial OA secondary to ACL rupture underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and ACL reconstruction. Nine patients received a mobile bearing UKA (Group 1) and fifteen a fixed-bearing one (Group 2). The mean follow-up was 53 ± 8.3 months for Group 1 and 42 ± 6.7 months for Group 2. Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and radiological evaluation used to assess the implant loosening alignment of the knee joint and tibial slope were recorded pre-operatively and at the last follow-up.

resultsAt the final follow-up, all patients showed statistically significant clinical improvements with respect to the pre-operative values (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in WOMAC index and KSS both objective and functional between groups at the last follow-up (KSS obj. 73.4 ± 9.3 vs 77.3 ± 10.5; KSS funct. 86.2 ± 6.2 vs 84.7 ± 5.9; WOMAC 79.3 ± 7.3 vs 81.3 ± 7.6 for Group 1 and 2, respectively). No differences in radiolucent lines were found between the groups.

conclusionThe use of different prosthesis design (fixed- or mobile-bearing) during a combined procedure of ACL reconstruction and medial unicompartmental arthroplasty does not affect the middle-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAdultAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansJoint InstabilityKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignRadiographyRetrospective StudiesTibiaACL reconstructionFixed bearingMedial osteoarthritisMobile bearingUnicompartmental knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID31079179
OpenAlexW2944696145

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.