ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Epiphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between trabecular metal and titanium augments.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. 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.
- Reconstruction According to Zonal Fixation and Adequate Imaging Techniques in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2026Review
- Revision knee arthroplasty using a modular system manufactured in Brazil. Clinical and radiographic results with a mean nine-year follow-up.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of two series of patients treated for revision TKA: one implanted with trabecular metal (TM) augments and one implanted with classic titanium augments. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 85 patients with a type 2 AORI defect underwent revision TKA and were treated either with TM epiphyseal augments directly screwed in the bone or with traditional titanium augments. There were 46 patients in the TM group and 39 patients in the titanium group included in the study. All the patients received the same varus-valgus constrained implant and no metaphyseal fixation devices were used.
resultsAfter a mean follow-up of 66.4 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in terms of failure for aseptic loosening between the two groups (4% in the TM group and 7.8% in the titanium group, p = 0.35). The ten-year survival using aseptic loosening as endpoint was 90.5% (95% CI 94.1-98.6) in the TM group and 85% (95% CI 101.9-119.3) in the titanium group (p = 0.26). A statistically significant difference was detected for the presence of RLL. No RLL were found under the studied TM augments compared to 13.7% of the titanium augments (p = 0.01).
conclusionThe use of TM augments directly screwed to the epiphysis of the femur and the tibia reduced the incidence of RLL compared to standard titanium augments during revision TKA with promising medium-term results.
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.