Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37290929›Full record

ArticleRMD open2023

Joint distraction using a purpose-built device for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective 2-year follow-up.

Thijmen Struik, Simon C Mastbergen, Reinoud W Brouwer, Roel J H Custers, Rutger C I van Geenen, Christiaan H W Heusdens, Pieter J Emans, Maarten R Huizinga, Mylène P Jansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Thijmen StruikDepartment of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Simon C MastbergenDepartment of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Reinoud W BrouwerDepartment of Orthopedics, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Roel J H CustersDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rutger C I van GeenenDepartment of Orthopedics, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Christiaan H W HeusdensDepartment of Orthopedics, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Antwerp, Belgium.
Pieter J EmansDepartment of Orthopedics, Joint-Preserving Clinic, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maarten R HuizingaDepartment of Orthopedics, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mylène P JansenDepartment of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands M.P.Jansen-36@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1929-6350
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLMartini Ziekenhuis · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveKnee distraction treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis successfully postpones arthroplasty for years. Studies performed thus far used general intended use, patient-personalised or custom-made devices. In this study, for the first time, a device specifically designed for knee distraction is evaluated.

design65 patients (≤65 years) with end-stage knee osteoarthritis indicated for arthroplasty received knee distraction. Before, 1-year and 2-year post-treatment, questionnaires were filled out and knee radiographs made. Adverse events and self-reported pain medication were registered.

resultsForty-nine patients completed 2-year follow-up: one patient did not complete treatment, three patients received arthroplasty in the first and four patients in the second year follow-up. Eight patients were lost to follow-up in the second year. The total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score showed a clinically relevant improvement at 1 and 2 years (+26 and +24 points), as did all subscales (all p<0.001). The minimum radiographic joint space width improved over 1 (+0.5 mm; p<0.001) and 2 (+0.4 mm; p=0.015) years, as did the physical Short-Form 36 (+10 points; p<0.001). The most common adverse event was pin tract infection, experienced by 66% of patients, in 88% successfully treated with oral antibiotics. In two cases, hospitalisation and/or intravenous antibiotics were needed. Eight patients experienced device-related complications. None of the complications influenced 2-year outcomes. Before treatment, 42% of patients used pain medication, which had nearly been halved 1 (23%; p=0.02) and 2 years (29%; p=0.27) post-treatment.

conclusionsPatients treated with a general applicable, for knee distraction purpose-built device showed, despite adverse events, significant clinical and structural improvement over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7986.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeAnti-Bacterial AgentsFollow-Up StudiesHumansPainProspective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsOrthopedic ProceduresOsteoarthritisOsteoarthritis, Knee

Identifiers

PMID37290929
PMCPMC10255034
OpenAlexW4379875988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.