ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Comparison of radiographic vs. computed tomography canal filling ratio measurement of stems in revision knee prostheses.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lack of consensus on which measurement method gives the most accurate results for medullary canal filling ratio (CFR) of stems used in revision knee prostheses causes confusion when interpreting scientific studies. Therefore, the present study aims to find the most accurate measurement method of CFR on direct radiographs. Methods: Twenty-eight femoral and 27 tibial components of 29 patients with a mean age of 72.86 ± 6.32 years were included in the study. Two different methods were used for computerized tomography CFR measurement. These methods and five different radiographic measurement methods used for CFR were compared statistically. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the real tomographic CFR of the femoral stem and the CFR calculation made by using ellipse area (p > 0.05). There was also no statistically significant difference between the tomographic CFR measurement calculated according to the largest stem size that can be implanted, and the method that accepted the smallest value as CFR after the measurement made according to Parsley's method on AP and lateral radiographs (p > 0.05). The results obtained by using all other tests were statistically different from each other. Conclusion: CFR calculation made by using ellipse area, is the most accurate method for femoral stem CFR. The method that accepted the smallest value as CFR after the measurement made according to Parsley's method on AP and lateral radiographs is the most accurate method for tibial stem CFR.
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.