ArticleArthroplasty today2022
Preoperative Virtual Total Knee Arthroplasty Surgery Using a Computed Tomography-based 3-dimensional Model With Variation in Reference Points and Target Alignment to Predict Femoral Component Sizing.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the size differences of 19 different femoral component placements from the standard position in total knee arthroplasty using 3-dimensional virtual surgery. Methods: Three-dimensional bone models were reconstructed from the computed tomography data of 101 varus osteoarthritic knees. The distal femoral bone was cut perpendicular to the femoral mechanical axis (MA) in the coronal plane. Twenty different component placements consisting of 5 cutting directions (perpendicular to MA, 3° and 5° extension relative to MA [3°E-MA and 5°E-MA, respectively], and 3° and 5° flexion relative to MA [3°F-MA and 5°F-MA, respectively]) in the sagittal plane, 2 rotational alignments (clinical epicondylar axis [CEA] and surgical epicondylar axis [SEA]), and 2 rotational types of anterior reference guide (central [CR] and medial [MR]) were simulated. Results: The mean anteroposterior dimension of femur ranged from 54.3 mm (5°F-MA, SEA, CR) to 62.5 mm (5°E-MA, CEA, MR). The largest and smallest differences of anteroposterior dimension from the standard position (3°F-MA, SEA, and CR) were 7.1 ± 1.3 mm (5°E-MA, CEA, and MR) and -1.2 ± 0.2 mm (5°F-MA, SEA, and CR), respectively. Multiple regression analysis revealed that flexion cutting direction, SEA, and CR were associated with smaller component size. Conclusions: The femoral component size can be affected easily by not only cutting direction but also the reference guide type and the target alignment. Our findings could provide surgeons with clinically useful information to fine-tune for unintended loose or tight joint gaps by adjusting the component size.
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.