Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34908561›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2021

Comparison of Existing and New Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Systems From the Same Manufacturer: A Prospective, Multicenter Study.

William G Hamilton, Ivan J Brenkel, Steven L Barnett, Paul W Allen, Kimberly A Dwyer, James P Lesko, Stephen R Kantor, Mark G Clatworthy

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06483178 (A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Gait in Fixed or Rotating Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasties), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06483178 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Gait in Fixed or Rotating Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasties

TypeinterventionalSponsorBelfast Health and Social Care TrustRan2025 to 2027Enrolled90ConditionsTotal Knee Arthroplasty, Knee OsteoarthritisArmsAttune knee implant, Triathlon knee implant
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Does lucency equate to revision? A five-year retrospective review of Attune and Triathlon total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

William G HamiltonFrom the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, VA (Dr. Hamilton); Victoria Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland (Mr. Brenkel); the Orthopaedic Specialty Institute, Irvine, CA (Dr. Barnett); The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK (Mr. Allen); DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction, Warsaw, IN (Dr. Dwyer and Dr. Lesko); New London Hospital, New London, NH (Dr. Kantor); and Auckland Bone & Joint Surgery, Auckland, NZ (Dr. Clatworthy).
Ivan J Brenkel
Steven L Barnett
Paul W Allen
Kimberly A Dwyer
James P LeskoORCID 0000-0003-1178-2741
Stephen R Kantor
Mark G Clatworthy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study evaluated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes for an Existing-TKA versus New-TKA from the same manufacturer.

methodsTKA outcomes for 752 with Existing-TKA versus 1129 subjects with New-TKA were followed through 2 years using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Responders were assessed per Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship was estimated. Radiographs had an independent radiographic review.

resultsTwo-year follow-up was 84.6% (636/752) for Existing-TKA and 82.5% (931/1129) for New-TKA. Two-year PROMs mean outcomes for New-TKA versus Existing-TKA at 2 years were: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (ADL: 89.0 versus 86.8, P = 0.005; pain: 88.9 versus 87.1, P = 0.019; symptoms: 84.1 versus 82.2, P = 0.017; Sport/Rec: 63.9 versus 58.8, P = 0.001; and QOL: 77.0 versus 73.5, P = 0.003), Patient's Knee Implant Performance (overall: 76.5 versus 73.5, P = 0.003; confidence: 8.4 versus 8.1, P = 0.004; stability: 8.6 versus 8.3, P = 0.006; satisfaction: 8.3 versus 8.1, P = 0.042; and modifying activities: 6.6 versus 6.4, P = 0.334), Oxford Knee Score (41.9 versus 41.1, P = 0.027), and EQ5D-3L (0.88 versus 0.88, P = 0.737). Two-year responder rates using WOMAC were 93.9% versus 90.6% (P = 0.018) for New-TKA versus Existing-TKA. Independent radiographic review showed that tibial and femoral radiolucencies ≥2 mm were similar (P ≥ 0.05) or favored New-TKA. Implant survivorship was similar between groups (log-rank P = 0.9994). DISCUSSION: New-TKA versus Existing-TKA demonstrated slightly better PROMs with similar radiographic and implant survivorship outcomes.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansKnee JointProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34908561
PMCPMC8678005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.