Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34267939›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2021

Revision knee surgery: the practical approach.

Paolo Salari, Andrea Baldini

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Fungal Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

2 authors.

Paolo SalariInstitute for Complex Arthroplasty and Revisions (ICAR), Villa Ulivella Clinic, Florence, Italy.
Andrea BaldiniInstitute for Complex Arthroplasty and Revisions (ICAR), Villa Ulivella Clinic, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a challenging procedure with often unreproducible results. A step-by-step approach is fundamental to achieving good outcomes.Successful surgery requires a correct diagnosis of the original cause of failure. Only with an accurate and detailed plan can surgeons overcome difficulties presented in this scenario.Any bone loss should be prevented during prosthetic component removal. Efficient tools must be chosen to avoid time-consuming manoeuvres.Joint reconstruction based on a 'dual-zone' fixation is essential to provide a long-term survivorship of the implant. The use of relatively short fully cemented stems combined with a biological metaphyseal fixation is highly recommended by authors.Flexion and extension gaps are accurately balanced after the establishment of the tibial platform.Varus-valgus laxity is commonly managed with a condylar constrained prosthesis. If hinged implants are required, a stronger implant fixation is needed to counteract constraints forces. Cite this article:

Indexed as

reconstructionrevision total knee arthroplastysurgical techniques

Identifiers

PMID34267939
PMCPMC8246103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.