ArticleArthroplasty today2024
What Is the Most Appropriate Comparator to Use in Assessing the Comparative Performance of Primary Total Knee Prostheses? A Registry-Based Study.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry has developed a standardized multi-stage approach to identify prostheses with a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision when comparing a prosthesis of interest to all other prostheses within the same broad class. However, the approach does not adequately differentiate between the conventional and complex design prostheses, and the comparator classes need to be re-evaluated. This study aimed to identify a more relevant comparator to better reflect conventional and complex surgical practices according to the stability design and also explore how the rate of revision estimated in the comparator groups affects the identification of " Methods: The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was calculated for 640,045 primary total knee replacements (TKRs) undertaken for Osteoarthritis from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2019. At first, survivorship analyses were undertaken to calculate the rate of revision for primary TKR by stability design. A modified TKR comparator group was developed by excluding the "complex" group of prostheses with fully stabilized and hinged designs. The effectiveness of the modified comparator groups, including cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized designs, was evaluated based on the ability to detect additional prostheses by performing the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry standardized method for identifying prosthesis outliers. Results: The modified comparator to include only conventional designs had a 10-year CPR of 5.2% (5.1, 5.3). When the fully stabilized and hinged design groups were combined as a comparator group of complex devices to reflect devices used only for specific purposes in primary TKR, the CPR at 10 year was 10.3% (8.6, 12.0). Conclusions: The use of modified comparator groups led to identifying additional conventional prostheses but fewer complex designs as being at risk and has the potential to improve the early assessment of TKR prostheses.
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.