ArticleCureus2022
Patella-Femoral Joint Revision Surgery Following a Rare and Interesting Case of Implant Failure: A Case Report and Retrospective Analysis of Our Hospitals Implant Data.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes After Patellofemoral Arthroplasty With the Arthrex iBalance-A Third Generation Implant.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the national joint registry, patello-femoral joint (PFJ) replacement accounts for 1% of all knee arthroplasty procedures in the UK, 1014 of which were performed in 2018. The femoro-patella vialla (FPV) implant by MicroPort orthopaedics has a high reported rate of revision, more than four times that of other knee replacements. The mechanisms of failure are usually loss of fixation at the bone-implant interface. We observe a rare and unusual case form of patella component failure whereby the facets of the implant remain imbedded within the patella as a result of shear force, leaving a loose patella button within the knee. A literature review was conducted of reported modes of failure of the FPV implant and retrospective analysis of our units' results looking into rate of revision, modes of failure, and assessment of a single surgeon's patient outcome measure (Knee Society Scores). Retrospective analysis of our hospital's data revealed that 11% of FPV implants were revised in our unit, a large percentage of which were due to pain and progressive osteoarthritis. We observed revision rates of 5.84% at 3 years, 10.21% at 5 years, and 13.13% at 10 years, which is favourable to national joint registry revision estimates of 6.99%, 10.13%, and 19.10%, respectively. Knee Society Scores reveal a mean improvement of 39.65 (-38 to 100) at follow-up following FPV unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. Our unit demonstrated better results from patient outcome measures when compared to literature and a lower rate of revision when compared to national figures.
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.