Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32435106›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics

The learning curve of patient-specific unikondylar arthroplasty may be advantageous to off-the-shelf implants: A preliminary study.

C Mayer, B Bittersohl, M Haversath, A Franz, R Krauspe, M Jäger, C Zilkens

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

C MayerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Duisburg-Essen, St. Marien Hospital Mülheim, Mülheim, Germany.
B BittersohlDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Duesseldorf, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
M HaversathDepartment of Orthopaedics, St. Vinzenz Hospital, Duesseldorf, Germany.
A FranzDepartment of Orthopaedics, Orthoparc Clinic, Cologne, Germany.
R KrauspeDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Duesseldorf, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
M JägerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Duisburg-Essen, St. Marien Hospital Mülheim, Mülheim, Germany.
C ZilkensDepartment of Orthopaedics, Orthoparc Clinic, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DESt. Marien Hospital · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntroducing a new arthroplasty system into clinical routine is challenging and could have an effect on early results. Since UKA are known to have failure mechanisms related to technical factors, reliable results and easy adoption are ideal. The question remains whether there are differences in objective procedure parameters in the early learning curve of different UKA systems.

methodstwo different UKA implants (Biomet Oxford[BO] followed by Conformis iuni[CI]) were introduced consecutively into clinical routine. We retrospectively analyzed the first 20 cases of each implant for one arthroplasty surgeon regarding operating time, correction of the mechanical axis, learning curve parameters, and revision rate of implants for 1.5 years postoperatively.

resultsOperating time (BO:98.3 ± 26.3min, CI:83.85 ± 21.8min (p < 0.078)), and tourniquet time differed in favor of the CI implant (BO:97.5 ± 29.5min; CI:73.5 ± 33.2 min; p < 0.017)). Mechanical alignment was restored in boths (preop:BO:mean 2.9°varus, CI:2.7°varus, postop:BOmean1.3°varus, CI:1°varus), while one BO patient and two CI patients were overcorrected. Operating time decreased from the first five implants to implants 16-20 for CI (95.2 ± 18.5min to 69 ± 21.5min, p < 0.076) and BO (130.6 ± 27.6min to 78 ± 17.3min, p < 0.009). Within 18 months of follow-up, 2 BO and 1 CI implants were revised.

conclusionThe introduction of an UKA implant was associated with longer surgery in both implants. Procedure time seems to differ between implants, while a learning curve was observed regarding instrumentation. CI implants seem to be reliable and adaptable in a medium-volume practice. The early results of this retrospective single-surgeon study were in favor of the individualized implant. Certainly, further studies encompassing larger cohorts with various implants are needed.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyConformisKneeLearning curvePatient-specific implantUKA

Identifiers

PMID32435106
PMCPMC7231819
OpenAlexW3022910490

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.