ArticleActa orthopaedica2023
No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMicroplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs. PATIENTS AND
methodsData on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.
resultsRevision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).
conclusionThere was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.
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.