ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2020
Three-point Method to Guide the Tibial Resection and Component Placing in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The distal tibiofibular syndesmosis is a reliable landmark for 3° varus tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty: a radiological evaluation on 1296 cases.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of the femoral condylar ellipse line and the surgical epicondylar axis: 3D measurement by MRI scans in healthy Chinese people.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- A New Reference Axis for Tibial Component Rotation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Three-dimensional Computed Tomography Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Relationship between the height of fibular head and the incidence and severity of knee osteoarthritis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2022Article
- Finite element analysis of the tibial component alignment in a transverse plane in total knee arthroplasty.Journal of applied biomedicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo introduce a three-point method combining the midpoint of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), the midsulcus of the tibial spines, and the midpoint of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) to determine appropriate tibial resection and component placing during TKA and to compare this method with Insall's 1/3 method.
methodsA consecutive series of 128 knees that underwent TKA from January 2015 to August 2018 were analyzed. In one group (64 knees), the medial 1/3 of tibial tubercle (the Insall's traditional method) was used for tibial component alignment. In the other group (64 knees), the three-point line connecting the midpoint of the PCL, the midpoint of the tibial spines, and the midpoint of the ACL was used for tibial component alignment. Both groups used the anterior tibial tendon as the distal reference for tibial resection. The coronal alignment error of the tibial component was determined by the angle between the line parallel to the tibial component platform and the tibial mechanical axis measured on postoperative radiograph. The axial rotation error of the femoral or tibial component was the intersection angle between the transepicondylar axis (TEA) and a line tangent to the posterior edge of the femoral or tibial component measured on CT. The coronal and axial alignment errors were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe average coronal alignment error of the tibial component in the three-point method group was 0.2° ± 1.4° versus - 0.9° ± 1.8°in the Insall's 1/3 method group (P < 0.001), and the mean absolute value in the three-point method group reduced by 37.3% compared to Insall's traditional method group. The average axial rotation error of the femoral component was 0.2° ± 1.2° in the three-point method group versus - 1.1° ± 1.7° in the Insall's 1/3 method group (P < 0.001), and the mean absolute value in three-point method group decreased by 43.9% compared to Insall's traditional method group. The average axial rotation error of the tibial component was 0.4° ± 1.4° versus - 1.4° ± 1.8° in the Insall's 1/3 method group (P < 0.001), and the mean absolute value in the three-point method group reduced by 35.5% compared to the Insall's traditional method group. The rates of rotation outliers were significantly lower in the three-point method group (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe line connecting the midpoint of the PCL, the midsulcus of the tibial spines, and the midpoint of the ACL could be used as the reference for the tibial resection and component placing. This method appears to be more accurate than Insall's 1/3 method. The results of this study provide a candidate method for component orientation with little error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.