ArticleArthroplasty today2023
The Role of Constraint in Revision Total Knee Replacement for Instability: Full Component Revision Vs Isolated Polyethylene Exchange in Selected Patients.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-Assisted Isolated Polyethylene Exchange: A Novel Surgical Technique.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Treatment of Postoperative Instability Following Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Parkinson's Disease.Arthroplasty today · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Instability is a common indication for revision after total knee arthroplasty. Replacement of multiple components is the current standard, but isolated polyethylene liner exchange (IPE) may present a less-morbid alternative. This study aims to determine (1) whether IPE results in similar rerevision frequency to component revision in select patients with symptomatic instability and (2) the effect of increasing constraint on the outcome. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 117 patients revised for symptomatic total knee arthroplasty instability from January 2016 to December 2017. The component revision (60 patients) or IPE (57 patients) cohorts were further stratified based on whether constraint was increased or not. The primary objective was to compare rerevision rates 2 years after component revision vs IPE. The secondary objectives consisted of evaluating reasons for rerevision, preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, and range of motion. Results: The rerevision rate was 18%, with no statistical difference between component and IPE cohorts. Cases where level of constraint increased due to revision, a significantly lower rate of rerevision was detected (9 of 77) (12%) than in cases where constraint did not increase (12 of 39) (31%) (P=0.012). This association was also noted in the component revision cohort but not in the IPE cohort (P=0.011). Conclusions: Rerevision occurred at similar frequencies 2 years after IPE or component revision for total knee arthroplasty instability. For component revision, increased constraint was associated with significantly fewer rerevisions.
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.