ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
TKA-Revision with maintenance of well-fixed metaphyseal sleeves: Indications and surgical technique.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the compromised bone situation revision implants need extended fixation options in order to achieve good long-term survival. Over decades this has been achieved with stems, either cemented or uncemented. In the last decade additional fixation options in terms of cementless metaphyseal sleeves or metaphyseal cones have been introduced and widely accepted. Revision of such implants is challenging, in particular if those porous coated parts are well integrated. Therefore, partial revision leaving the well-fixed parts in place can be an option if the indication is allowing it. This can help to preserve bone. In this study we show 2 cases with metaphyseal sleeves, in which we demonstrate when and how revision can be performed leaving sleeves in place. Meticulous pre-Op analysis of the failure mechanism is mandatory to find those few cases in which a partial revision can be recommended. In our cases, it was one patient with persistent tibia stem pain and another patient with secondary instability. In both cases implant fixation was not the problem, and therefore leaving the well-fixed sleeves in place was considered. Before final decision was made, specific information on implants sizes and constraint are needed. In our tibial revision stem thickness was less than 14 mm decision, in this situation the stem can be removed through the sleeve, leaving the sleeve in place. The technique how to do it, is shown in this study. In the second case a traumatic MCL rupture was leading to a secondary instability, needing a revision from a VVC constraint to a rotating hinge. Again, pre-Op analysis and the surgical technique of femoral component removal are described. In the great majority of cases a full revision with complete implant removal is required. In a few cases a partial revision with maintenance of implant parts can be considered but only after careful analysis of the failure mode. Even if the failure mode allows a partial revision specific implant information need to be obtained to clarify whether it is really possible. If it is possible, a specific surgical technique is recommended and described in this study.
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.