Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35590296›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Comparative retrieval analysis of a novel anatomic tibial tray backside: alterations in tibial component design and surface coating can increase cement adhesions and surface roughness.

Dominic T Mathis, Joshua Schmidli, Felix Amsler, Johann Henckel, Harry Hothi, Alister Hart, Michael T Hirschmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dominic T MathisUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. dominic.mathis@unibas.ch.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0081-7734
Joshua SchmidliUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Felix AmslerAmsler Consulting, Basel, Switzerland.
Johann HenckelRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, England, UK.
Harry HothiRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, England, UK.
Alister HartRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, England, UK.
Michael T HirschmannUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital · GBUniversity of Basel · CHMettler-Toledo (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the Persona® knee system a novel anatomic total knee design was developed, which has no pre-coating, whereas the predecessor knee system is pre-coated with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). Joint registry data have shown no decrease in risk of aseptic revision of PMMA pre-coated tibial components compared with non-pre-coated implants. The aim of this retrieval study was to compare the amount of cement adhesions, geometry and surface features between the two knee designs and to correlate them with the underlying reason for revision surgery.

methodsRetrieval analysis was performed of 15 NexGen® and 8 Persona® fixed-bearing knee implants from the same manufacturer retrieved from two knee revision centres. A photogrammetric method was used to grade the amount of cement attached to the tibial tray backside. The geometry and dimensions of the tibial trays, tray projections and peripheral lips were measured using digital callipers and compared between the two different designs. To measure the surface roughness on the backside of the tibial tray, a contact profilometer was used. To investigate differences between the two designs statistical analyses (t-test) were performed.

resultsAll Persona® trays showed evidence of cement adhesion with a % area of 75.4%; half of the NexGen® trays had cement adhesions, with a mean value of 20%. There was a significant difference in the percentage of area covered by cement between the two designs (p < 0.001). Results from the contact profilometer revealed that Persona® and NexGen® tray backsides showed a similar lateral (1.36 μm and 1.10 μm) and medial (1.39 μm and 1.12 μm) mean surface roughness with significant differentiation (p < 0.05) of the lateral and medial roughness values between the two designs. Persona® stems showed a significantly higher mean surface roughness (1.26) compared to NexGen® stems (0.89; p < 0.05).

conclusionThe novel anatomic knee system showed significantly more cements adhesions and a higher surface roughness which was most likely attributed to the most obvious design and coating alteration of the tibial tray. This study provides first retrieval findings of a novel TKA design recently introduced to the market.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisBone CementsHumansPolyethylenePolymethyl MethacrylateProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureTibiaBone CementsPolyethylenePolymethyl MethacrylateCement adhesionsImplant-cement interfaceRetrieval analysisSurface roughnessTibial trayTKA revision reasonTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35590296
PMCPMC9118733
OpenAlexW4280550354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.