ArticleActa orthopaedica2022
The indication for aseptic revision TKA does not influence 1-year outcomes: an analysis of 178 full TKA revisions from a prospective institutional registry.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeOutcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may depend on the indication for revision surgery. We compared pain, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction among different indications for an aseptic TKA revision. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study of prospective data from an institutional registry of 178 primary TKAs revised between 2012 and 2020. Patients were grouped by the main reason for their revision: loosening, malposition, instability, or stiffness. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0-10), physical function (KOOS-PS and KSS), and quality of life (EQ-5D) were surveyed preoperatively and at 2 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated through questions related to knee function and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again at 1-year follow-up.
resultsPain and PROMs improved in all groups and did not differ statistically significantly between the 4 groups at 1-year follow-up, but equivalence for pain was not confirmed between groups. Overall, pain during mobilization improved by 2.4 (95% CI 1.9-3.0) at 1-year follow-up, which was both clinically and statistically significant. Improvements were seen within 2 months of surgery, with no further improvements seen 1 year postoperatively. Approximately 2/3 of patients reported that their knee function had improved and would undergo the same surgery again, at 1-year follow-up.
conclusionStatistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and PROMs were seen in all 4 revision groups 1 year after revision TKA. These results may assist clinicians and patients during preoperative counselling.
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.