Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38597226›Full record

Trial reportActa orthopaedica2024

Influence of marker-selection method in radiostereometric analysis of total knee arthroplasty on tibial baseplate migration patterns: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial with 5-year follow-up.

Thies J N Van der Lelij, Lennard A Koster, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Sören Toksvig-Larsen, Rob G H H Nelissen, Bart L Kaptein

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thies J N Van der LelijDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. T.J.N.van_der_lelij@lumc.nl.
Lennard A KosterDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Perla J Marang-van de MheenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Safety & Security Science and Centre for Safety in Healthcare, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sören Toksvig-LarsenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Hässleholm Hospital, Hässleholm, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Rob G H H NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Bart L KapteinDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLLund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeDifferent marker-selection methods are applied to represent implant and tibial segments in radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Either a consistent set of markers throughout subsequent RSA examinations ("consistent-marker method") is used or all available markers at each follow-up ("all-marker method"). The aim of this secondary analysis was to compare marker-selection methods on individual and group level TKA migration results.

methodsData from a randomized RSA study with 72 patients was included. Tibial baseplate migration was evaluated at 3 months, 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively with both marker-selection methods. Additionally, migration was calculated using 5 fictive points, either plotted based on the consistent set of markers or all available markers.

resultsMigration could be calculated with both marker-selection methods for 248 examinations. The same prosthesis and bone markers (n = 136), different prosthesis markers (n = 71), different bone markers (n = 21), or different prosthesis and bone markers (n = 20) were used. The mean difference in maximum total point motion (MTPM) between all examinations was 0.02 mm, 95% confidence interval -0.26 to 0.31 mm. 5 implants were classified as continuously migrating with the consistent-marker method versus 6 implants (same 5 plus one additional implant) with the all-marker method. Using fictive points, fewer implants were classified as continuously migrating in both marker-selection methods. Differences between TKA groups in mean MTPM were comparable with both marker-selection methods, also when fictive points were used.

conclusionEstimated group differences in mean MTPM were similar between marker-selection methods, but individual migration results differed. The latter has implications when classifying implants for estimated risk of future loosening.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeFollow-Up StudiesHumansProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRadiostereometric Analysis

Identifiers

PMID38597226
PMCPMC10959012
OpenAlexW4393090836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.