Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264382›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021

A prospective study on outcome of patient-specific cones in revision knee arthroplasty.

Alexander A Cherny, Anton N Kovalenko, Taras A Kulyaba, Nikolai N Kornilov

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Utilizing 3d-printed patient-specific porous titanium cones in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexander A ChernyOrthopedic Department N 17, Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, 8 Akademika Baykova str., Saint Petersburg, 195427, Russian Federation. alexander.cherny.spb@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1176-612X
Anton N KovalenkoOrthopedic Department N 19, Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Taras A KulyabaOrthopedic Department N 10, Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Nikolai N KornilovOrthopedic Department N 17, Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, 8 Akademika Baykova str., Saint Petersburg, 195427, Russian Federation.
Russian Scientific Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after R.R. Vreden · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCones are known to be good substitutes for metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Often the off-the-shelf cones do not fit to the individual patient's anatomy. New 3D-printing additive technologies allow to develop patient-specific cones. The aim of this prospective study was to describe their outcome.

methodsFrom 2017 until 2020, 35 patient-specific titanium cones (15 femoral and 20 tibial) were implanted during 31 RTKAs (45% varus-valgus constrained implants and 55% rotating hinges). Clinical outcome was evaluated using KSS, WOMAC and FJS-12 scoring systems at 12 and 24 months. No patients were lost for follow-up.

resultsIn all cases, there were no technical difficulties in adapting the cones to both the host bone and the revision implant. By the time of performing data analysis (January 2021), none of the 31 patients needed revision surgery for any reason. At 12 months of follow-up, the mean values of scores for knee function improved significantly from baseline (p < 0.01): KSS-103.00 (min 100-max 111, SD 5.35), WOMAC-16.5 (min 9-max 24, SD 6.45), FJS-12-61.60 (min 52-max 76, SD 9.20). At 24 months, the trend towards improvement of functional results continued but did not reached statistical significance comparing to 12 months: KSS was 105.92 (min 95-max 155, SD 16.18), WOMAC-14.07 (min 0-max 42, SD 12.42), FJS-12-83.78 (min 65-max 97, SD 09.64). Radiographic signs of osteointegration were detected within the first 6 month after surgery in all cases. Loosening of femoral or tibial components as well as peri-prosthetic infection was not observed in any of the patients during the follow-up.

conclusionThe original additive technology for designing and producing patient-specific metaphyseal and diaphyseal cones with different porosity zones for extensive femoral and tibial bone defects in RTKA is precise and clinically effective solution, at least in the short term. It could be a valid alternative to "off-the-shelf" cones or sleeves as well as structural allografts and even mega-prosthesis, but a longer follow-up period is required to assess its medium- and long-term reliability.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisHumansKnee JointProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignReoperationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome3D printingAdditive technologyBone defectKneePatient-specific implantRevision arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34264382
OpenAlexW3177763709

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.