ArticleInternational orthopaedics2023
Clinical outcomes and survival comparison between NexGen all-poly and its metal-backed equivalent in total knee arthroplasty.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Biomechanical comparison of all-polyethylene total knee replacement and its metal-backed equivalent on periprosthetic tibia using the finite element method.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Implant Preference and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Staged Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: All-Polyethylene and Contralateral Metal-Backed Tibial Components.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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
purposeThis study aims to compare total knee replacement (TKA) with NexGen All-Poly (APT) and NexGen Metal-Backed (MBT) in terms of implant survivorship, reasons leading to implant failure and functional results of defined age categories.
methodsA single-centre, retrospective evaluation of 812 patients who underwent knee replacement with NexGen CR between 2005 and 2021, comparing a modern congruent APT component to a modular MBT equivalent component using a similar surgical technique at a notable mean follow-up duration. Implant survival, functional outcomes using the Knee Society Score and range of motion were evaluated and compared in different age categories.
resultsOf the 812 NexGen CR TKAs performed at our institution, 410 (50.4%) used APT components and 402 (49.6%) MBT components. The survival rate of NexGen APT was 97.1% and that of NexGen MBT was 93.2% (p = 0.36). Removal of the implant occurred overall in 15 cases, for MBT in ten cases, and for APT in four cases. The FS was proved to be significantly higher when APT components were implanted in younger patients than for MBT (p = 0.005). A similar range of motion between the components was recorded (p = 0.1926).
conclusionUnder defined conditions, we measured the clinical results of implants from a single manufacturer implanted in a single department using a similar surgical technique. Considering the limitations, we suggest that all-polyethylene tibial components are equal or even superior to metal-backed ones across the examined age categories.
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.