ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2020
Joint line reestablishment in revision total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Joint Line Displacement on Function and Quality of Life After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Standardizing Joint-Line determination on anteroposterior knee radiographs: multicenter validation of the adductor ratio and a novel composite index in 3000 knees.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Radiographic reliability of anatomical knee landmarks for joint line determination in healthy adults.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Estimation of adductor ratio in the Indian population: Is it a reliable indicator for recreating joint line of the knee?Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Isolated Zone 2 and Zone 3 Cementless Tibial Fixation Shows Early Promise in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- An MRI-Derived Formula for Estimating the Native Joint Line Position in the Presence of Distal Femoral Bone Loss.Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, the traditional "Anatomical Landmark-Distance Method (AL-DM)" in the formation of joint line (JL) was compared with "Adductor Tubercle-Ratios method" (AT-RM), and the effect of reestablishment of JL on clinical and functional outcomes were evaluated. MATERIALS AND
methods16 revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) were performed by using "AT-RM" (group 1) and 16 rTKA by using "AL-DM" (group 2) in our clinic between 2015 and 2018. The data were prospectively collected and a total of 32 knees of 31 patients were analyzed. At the final follow-up, knee functions were evaluated by using Knee Society Score (KSS) knee and function, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires and physical examinations.
resultsPostoperative flexion arc was higher in Group 1. KSS knee and function scores were better in group 1. In group1, JL was reestablished successfully in all revision rTKAs in terms of ATJL and the tibial tubercle TT-JL ratios. The improvement in KSS knee and function scores and WOMAC scores were also better in group 1. Measurements showed that the improvement in KSS scores increased as AT-JL and TT-JL distances approached the calculated values.
conclusion"AT-RM" was shown to be superior to the traditional distance method in terms of JL reestablishment. Functional results and patient satisfaction increased when JL was reestablished.
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.