ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Prosthesis size distribution in Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - Based on more than 1900 Chinese patients.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical factors that contribute to tibial periprosthetic fracture after cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- The factors influencing the component sizes in Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Article
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
introductionIt is difficult to determine the optimal size of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prosthesis both pre-operatively and intra-operatively. Inappropriate femoral and tibial components are still the leading cause of failure. Several guidelines based on the Western population may not apply to the Chinese patients. We consequently try to investigate distributions of Oxford-UKA prosthesis in Chinese patients in order to provide a good reference for surgeons preoperatively.
methodsFrom January 2010 to December 2019, 1909 patients (2307 knees) with primary anteromedial osteoarthritis accepted Oxford phase III UKA. Statistical analyses were performed on the distributions of the femoral, tibial, and matching of the femoral-tibial prosthesis. The possible factors affecting the sizes of femoral components, including gender, height based on gender were investigated.
results1. The distributions of femoral size components include extra-large (XL) 0, large (L) 1.08%, medium (M) 26.09%, small (S) 59.64%, extra-small (XS) 13.18%; the tibial sizes components were F 0, E 0.69%, D 7.80%, C 19.59%, B 24.79%, A 34.16%, AA 12.96%.
conclusionIn Chinese patients, the size of femoral components is mainly small (S) for women, medium (M) for men. The tibial components of female patients are mainly A and B, whereas C is predominant for male patients. The more commonly used matching forms are S-A and S-B.
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.