Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35769657›Full record

SynthesisOrthopedic reviews2022

Short-Term Survivorship of 3D-Printed Titanium Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Fabio Mancino, Vincenzo Di Matteo, Fabrizio Mocini, Silvia Pietramala, Alessandro Singlitico, Andrea De Fazio, Vincenzo La Vergata, Giorgio Gasparini, Giulio Maccauro, Ivan De Martino

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Orthopedic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fabio MancinoDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo Di MatteoDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Fabrizio MociniDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Silvia PietramalaDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Alessandro SingliticoDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Andrea De FazioDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo La VergataDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giorgio GaspariniOrthopedic Surgery Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Catanzaro Magna Græcia, Viale Europa, Germaneto, 88100 Catanzaro, CZ, Italy.
Giulio MaccauroDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Ivan De MartinoDivision of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Aging, Neurological, Orthopaedic and Head-Neck studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITMagna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several studies have evaluated the outcomes of tantalum cones in revision knee arthroplasty with moderate-to-severe metaphyseal bone defects. However, recent innovations have led to the development of 3-D printed titanium cones to better adapt to host bone, there remains no consensus on their overall performance. Objective: We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature to examine short-term survivorship and complication rates of their usage in revision TKAs. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords. Results: In all, 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 687 cones were implanted in 557 revision TKAs. The all-cause revision-free survivorship of the implants was 95.3% (26 revisions), and of the cones was 95.5% (31 cones revised) at mean 24 months follow-up. The cones revision-free survivorship from aseptic loosening was 99.7%. The overall complication rate was 19.7% with infection as the most common complications observed and the most frequent reason for revision with an incidence of 10.4% and 4.1%, respectively. Overall, functional outcomes improved as documented by postoperative knee scores. Conclusion: 3-D printed metal cones represent a reliable option in metaphyseal bone defects reconstruction that provides high fixation, good short-term survivorship, and complications rates in line with similar devices. In addition, they are associated with lower intraoperative complications, and higher survivorship from aseptic loosening.

Indexed as

3D-printedbone reconstructionknee revision arthroplastymetal conesmetaphyseal bone defect

Identifiers

PMID35769657
PMCPMC9235418
OpenAlexW4283575957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.