ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Preoperative mechanical axis has no influence on reoperation rate in primary rotating-hinge knee arthroplasty.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical versus kinematic alignment for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Reconstruction of mechanical leg axis using non-modular cemented hinged prosthesis in complex primary total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of the study is to evaluate reoperation rate and its relationship to preoperative mechanical axis of rotating-hinge TKA used as the primary implant in complex knees. Methods: Patients subjected to primary TKA with a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis due to primary osteoarthritis between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative mechanical axis was measured using the last preoperative telemetry x-ray image. Preoperative axis was classified according to the type of deformity (varus or valgus) and its magnitude (0-15°, 16-25° or >25°). Reoperation rate (with or without implant removal) was the primary outcome of the current study. We studied if the preoperative mechanical axis (either varus-valgus, or magnitude of malalignment) was related to implant survival rate. Results: Forty-two patients were included in the study. Mean follow-up was 51.42 ± 31.88 months. The 83.3% of patients presented a valgus axis while the 16.7% presented a varus axis. Need of reoperation occurred in eight patients (19.0%). However, no patients (0%) required implant removal with revision TKA. No association was seen between the preoperative mechanical axis and risk of reoperation (p = 0.16). Conclusion: In selected situations that do not permit less constrained implants, primary rotating-hinge arthroplasty could be a good alternative. Risk of reoperation does not seem to depend upon the preoperative mechanical axis when using a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis for primary arthroplasty in non-tumoral complex knees.
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.