Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37237144›Full record

ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2024

Constraint degree in revision total knee replacement: a registry study on 1432 patients.

V Digennaro, M Brunello, A Di Martino, A Panciera, B Bordini, B D Bulzacki Bogucki, R Ferri, D Cecchin, C Faldini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

9 authors.

V Digennaro1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
M Brunello1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
A Di Martino1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
A Panciera1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
B BordiniMedical Technology Laboratory, Research Institute Codivilla Putti Rizzoli, Via Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
B D Bulzacki Bogucki1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
R Ferri1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. riccardo.ferri@ior.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-7624
D Cecchin1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
C Faldini1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via G.B. Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTotal knee replacement (TKR) failure represents a hard challenge for knee surgeons. TKR failure can be managed in revision with different constraint, related with soft and bone knee damages. The choice of the right constraint for every failure cause represents a not summarized entity. The purpose of this study is identifying distribution of different constraints in revision TKR (rTKR) for failure cause and the overall survival.

methodsA registry study based on the Emilia Romagna Register of the Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (called RIPO) was performed with a selection of 1432 implants, in the period between 2000 and 2019. Selection implants including primary surgery constraint, failure cause and constraint revision for every patient, and divided for constraint degrees used during procedures (Cruciate Retaining-CR, Posterior Stabilized-PS, Condylar Constrained Knee-CCK, Hinged).

resultsThe most common cause of primary TKR failure was aseptic loosening (51,45%), followed by septic loosening (29,12%). Each type of failure was managed with different constraint, the most used was CCK in the most of failure causes, such as to manage aseptic and septic loosening in CR and PS failure. Overall survival of TKA revisions has been calculated at 5 and 10 years for each constraint, with a range of 75.1-90.0% at 5 years and 75.1-87.5% at 10 years.

conclusionConstraint degree in rTKR is typically higher than primary, CCK is the most used constraint in revision surgery with an overall survival of 87.5% at 10 years.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis FailureRegistriesReoperationAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignConstraintFailureOutcomesRevisionTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37237144
PMCPMC11133104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.