Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31304995›Full record

Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2019

Kinematic Evaluation of the GMK Sphere Implant During Gait Activities: A Dynamic Videofluoroscopy Study.

Pascal Schütz, William R Taylor, Barbara Postolka, Sandro F Fucentese, Peter P Koch, Michael A R Freeman, Vera Pinskerova, Renate List

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pascal SchützInstitute for Biomechanics, D-HEST, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1711-7881
William R TaylorInstitute for Biomechanics, D-HEST, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4060-4098
Barbara PostolkaInstitute for Biomechanics, D-HEST, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sandro F FucenteseOrthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland.
Peter P KochKlinik für Orthopädie und Traumatologie, Winterthur Cantonal Hospital, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Michael A R FreemanThe Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Vera PinskerovaFirst Orthopaedic Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Renate ListInstitute for Biomechanics, D-HEST, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) SwitzerlandMedacta International
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Joint stability is a primary concern in total knee joint replacement. The GMK Sphere prosthesis was specifically designed to provide medial compartment anterior-posterior (A-P) stability, while permitting rotational freedom of the joint through a flat lateral tibial surface. The objective of this study was to establish the changes in joint kinematics introduced by the GMK Sphere prosthesis during gait activities in comparison to conventional posterior-stabilized (PS) fixed-bearing and ultra-congruent (UC) mobile-bearing geometries. The A-P translation and internal/external rotation of three cohorts, each with 10 good outcome subjects (2.9 ± 1.6 years postop), with a GMK Sphere, GMK PS or GMK UC implant were analysed throughout complete cycles of gait activities using dynamic videofluoroscopy. The GMK Sphere showed the smallest range of medial compartment A-P translation for level walking, downhill walking, and stair descent (3.6 ± 0.9 mm, 3.1 ± 0.8 mm, 3.9 ± 1.3 mm), followed by the GMK UC (5.7 ± 1.0 mm, 8.0 ± 1.7 mm, 8.7 ± 1.9 mm) and the GMK PS (10.3 ± 2.2 mm, 10.1 ± 2.6 mm, 11.6 ± 1.6 mm) geometries. The GMK Sphere exhibited the largest range of lateral compartment A-P translation (12.1 ± 2.2 mm), and the largest range of tibial internal/external rotation (13.2 ± 2.2°), both during stair descent. This study has shown that the GMK Sphere clearly restricts A-P motion of the medial condyle during gait activities while still allowing a large range of axial rotation. The additional comparison against the conventional GMK PS and UC geometries, not only demonstrates that implant geometry is a key factor in governing tibio-femoral kinematics, but also that the geometry itself probably plays a more dominant role for joint movement than the type of gait activity. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Indexed as

GaitKnee ProsthesisAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaCohort StudiesFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle Agedgait activitiesmedial congruentmoving fluoroscopesingle plane fluoroscopytotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID31304995
PMCPMC6851890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.