Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725586›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery & related research2022

Bone loss in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: management and outcomes.

Thomas Bieganowski, Daniel B Buchalter, Vivek Singh, John J Mercuri, Vinay K Aggarwal, Joshua C Rozell, Ran Schwarzkopf

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Accelerated knee osteoarthritis: a case description and literature analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas BieganowskiDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1566-7962
Daniel B BuchalterDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Vivek SinghDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
John J MercuriDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Geisinger Health, Scranton, PA, USA.
Vinay K AggarwalDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Joshua C RozellDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Ran SchwarzkopfDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA. Ran.Schwarzkopf@nyulangone.org.
Geisinger Health System · USNYU Langone Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough several techniques and implants have been developed to address bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), management of these defects remains challenging. This review article discusses the indications and management options of bone loss following total knee arthroplasty based on preoperative workup and intraoperative findings. MAIN TEXT: Various imaging modalities are available that can be augmented with intraoperative examination to provide a clear classification of a bony defect. For this reason, the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification is frequently used to guide treatment. The AORI provides a reliable system by which surgeons can classify lesions based on their size and involvement of surrounding structures. AORI type I defects are managed with cement with or without screws as well as impaction bone grafting. For AORI type IIA lesions, wedge or block augmentation is available. For large defects encompassing AORI type IIB and type III defects, bulk allografts, cones, sleeves, and megaprostheses can be used in conjunction with intramedullary stems.

conclusionsTreatment of bone loss in rTKA continues to evolve as different techniques and approaches have been validated through short- and mid-term follow-up. Extensive preoperative planning with imaging, accurate intraoperative evaluation of the bone loss, and comprehensive understanding of all the implant options available for the bone loss are paramount to success.

Indexed as

Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute classificationArthroplastyBone lossKneeRevision

Identifiers

PMID35725586
PMCPMC9208118
OpenAlexW4283157962

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.