ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2023
A comparison of joint line height after revision total knee replacement using a rotating hinge versus a condylar revision knee system.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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.
- Radiographic reliability of anatomical knee landmarks for joint line determination in healthy adults.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Similar kinematic patterns in posterior-stabilized and condylar constrained knee prostheses in revision knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to assess the effects of two differing revision total knee implants designs (condylar and rotating hinge) on joint line height. Method: The use of distal augmentation and pre and post revision radiographic joint line heights were compared in 19 condylar type knee replacements (Zimmer NexGen Legacy Constrained Condylar Knee - LCCK) and 40 LINK-Endo-rotating hinge knee replacements. Joint line and patellar heights were determined for each implant using four validated methods. For comparison within a group a two tailed paired Student's t-test was used, for comparison between the groups an unpaired, two tailed Student's t-test was used. A p value of less than 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Results: In 15 of 19 NexGen revision knee replacements distal augments were used. No distal augments were used in the LINK-Endo RHK group. In both systems there was no tendency to elevate the joint line relative to the tibia. The joint line was distalised relative to the femur in the NexGen group and proximalised in the rotating hinge knee group. Measurements using antero-posterior radiographs were found to be the most reliable method of assessing joint line height when compared to lateral radiographs. Conclusion: Both revision knee implant systems adequately restored joint line height. In condylar type knee revision implants elevation of the joint line height may be avoided through the use of distal augmentation. We found AP radiographs to be the most reliable method of accurately assessing joint line height.
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.