ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Radiographic Cone Zone Classification of Metaphyseal Cone Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short- and Mid-term Radiographic Outcomes of Ream-then-broaching Metaphyseal Cones During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: No objective radiographic scoring system exists to classify metaphyseal cone stability. Our purpose was to create a novel, systematic method to radiographically evaluate metaphyseal cone fixation based on radiographic findings suggestive of cone stability. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of revision total knee arthroplasty patients (6/2015-12/2017) using porous titanium femoral or tibial metaphyseal cones in conjunction with short cemented stems (50 mm-75 mm). Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Survivorship free of aseptic loosening and reoperation, as well as radiographic evaluation using a novel cone zone scoring system were analyzed. Results: Forty-nine revision total knee arthroplasties were included in the study (12 femoral, 48 tibial cones), the majority, performed for aseptic loosening (25/49, 51%). Median follow-up was 39 months (range 25-58). Using the radiographic cone zone scoring method, >90% of all femoral cones were classified as likely stable or stable with strong, statistically significant intraclass correlations between all 3 reviewers. Similarly, >97% of all tibial cones were classified as likely stable or stable, with moderate, statistically significant intraclass correlations between all 3 reviewers. Only 1 femoral and 1 tibial cone were considered at risk of loosening. The study sample demonstrated 100% survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening without evidence of radiographic loosening in any case. Conclusions: Using a novel systematic cone zone scoring and classification method, the overwhelming majority of femoral and tibial cones were classified as likely stable or stable, with no identified cases of aseptic loosening or related revision. Further studies are needed to validate this objective classification method.
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.