ReviewDer Orthopade2021
[Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Primary total knee arthroplasty in geriatric patients with tibial plateau fractures].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Effects of personalized 3D-printed blocks in total knee arthroplasty and revision surgery for massive bone defects: a single-center retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Isolated aseptic loosening in total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive 10-year review of partial vs. total component revisions.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2019, 124,677 primary total knee arthroplasties and 14,462 revision TKA were performed in Germany. This corresponds to a percentage of 11.6%. According to the EPRD, the probability of further revision surgery after the first exchange operation is around 15%. REASONS: The most common reason for revision surgery is still aseptic loosening with 23.9%. One possible cause could be the difficult fixation of revision total knee arthroplasty. If the bone quality is insufficient, cement-free or cemented diaphyseal anchoring of the prosthesis is often not sufficient to ensure adequate fixation. As a rule, defect management and fixation of the implant are based on the defect situation and the quality of the bone. Therefore, revision total knee arthroplasties based on the fixation principle of Jones et al. should be sufficiently fixed in at least 2 zones. TECHNIQUES: There are various techniques for stable anchoring of revision implants. In addition to cemented or cementless stem anchoring, bone allografts, wedges and blocks and, in recent years, cones and sleeves have become increasingly popular. In the present work, the various options for a stable anchoring of revision implants are presented and evaluated. In addition, the clinical and radiological outcome of cones vs. sleeves in bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty will be compared.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34654936What 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.