ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the difference of results between two methods of femoral box osteotomy adopted by two designs of posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. PATIENTS AND
methodsRetrospective analysis of the results of two groups of patients operated upon using two primary PS TKA systems, PFC Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Johnson and Johnson®) and Genesis II prosthesis (Smith and Nephew®), with an average of five year follow-up was done. Group 1 included 152 knees in 121 patients and group 2 included 122 knees in 111 patients. The average follow-up period in both groups was five years. The box osteotomy method depends on bone saw in group 1, and bone reamer in group 2.
resultsThe KSS score of group 2 was better in the first six months postoperatively. Then, no significant differences were seen in the remaining follow-up visits. The risk of periprosthetic fractures was significantly higher in group 1 (p-value 0.040). Survival analysis showed a significantly shorter time for reoperation in group 1 than in group 2 as described by log-rank test, (p < 0.006).
conclusionThe method of box cutting has an impact on the function and longevity of posterior stabilized primary knee implants. The risk of periprosthetic fractures can be reduced by proper patient selection, decreasing the box sizes, and development of more "controlled" box osteotomy instruments.
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.