Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36823955›Full record

Trial reportCartilage2023

Implantable Shock Absorber Provides Superior Pain Relief and Functional Improvement Compared With High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: A 2-Year Report.

David R Diduch, Dennis C Crawford, Anil S Ranawat, Jan Victor, David C Flanigan

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cartilage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT03671213 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of the Calypso Knee System for Symptom Relief in Subjects With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis

TypeinterventionalSponsorMoximedRan2018 to 2025Enrolled81ConditionsOsteoarthritis, KneeArmsCalypso Knee System (Implantable Shock Absorber)
NCT03838978 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of the Calypso Knee System for Symptom Relief in Subjects With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis, OUS

TypeinterventionalSponsorMoximedRan2019 to 2025Enrolled81ConditionsOsteoarthritis, KneeArmsCalypso Knee System (Implantable Shock Absorber)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical treatments of bone marrow lesions.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Implantable Shock Absorber: Breakthrough or Hype?Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

David R DiduchDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Dennis C CrawfordOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Anil S RanawatHospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Jan VictorUZ Gent, Gent, Belgium.
David C FlaniganThe Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Ghent University Hospital · BEHospital for Special Surgery · USOregon Health & Science University · USThe Ohio State University · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUp to 10 million Americans below the age of 65 years have symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and may not yet be candidates for arthroplasty. In response, a subcutaneous implantable shock absorber (ISA) that unloads the knee has been developed. The safety and effectiveness of ISA treatment were compared against a surgical unloading control, high tibial osteotomy (HTO).

designThis was a prospective open-label cohort study with a historical control arm. Subjects underwent ISA placement or HTO. The primary endpoint was a composite variable combining pain, function, specific adverse events, integrity of implant or hardware, and conversion to subsequent surgery. Pain and function outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores) were assessed through 24 months. Adverse events were tracked.

resultsThe primary endpoint demonstrated superiority of the ISA arm versus the HTO arm, with 85.6% of ISA subjects meeting all criteria compared with 65.5% of HTO subjects. In addition, all 5 secondary endpoints showed superiority of ISA over HTO. At 24 months, the proportions of subjects considered responders were 95.8% (ISA) versus 87.9% (HTO) for pain and 91.7% (ISA) versus 81.3% (HTO) for function. The ISA procedure was well tolerated, with 13.4 days to full weightbearing status versus 58.0 days for the HTO arm.

conclusionsTreatment with an ISA demonstrated noninferiority and superiority versus treatment with HTO in subjects aged 25-65 years who had OA of the medial knee. Treatment with ISA has high clinical benefit and is durable through at least 24 months.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeCohort StudiesHumansOsteotomyPainProspective StudiesTibiahigh tibial osteotomykneeosteoarthritisshock absorberunloading

Identifiers

PMID36823955
PMCPMC10416201
OpenAlexW4321749053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.