ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Aseptic midterm survival rates between different cemented tibial stem designs in hinged total knee arthroplasty: a 6-year evaluation from the German Arthroplasty Registry.
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. 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, 1 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe rate of revision TKA and thus the use of hinged implants (HI) steadily rises. Aseptic loosening lies on the top of the failure patterns. However, no evidence exists until now based on national scale high-caseloads that analyzes the impact of cemented HI stem-design on aseptic survival rates.
methodsData on aseptic HI-revisions with full-cemented tibia-stems were conducted from the German Arthroplasty Registry. Cases were divided in primary HI (PHI) and HI used in revision operations (RHI). Endpoint was a new revision following either a PHI or an RHI. The impact of stem conicity (conical vs. cylindrical), diameter (≤ 13 mm vs. > 13 mm), length (≤ 90 mm vs. > 90 mm) and offset on the 6-Year-Cumulative-Aseptic-Revision-Rate (6Y-CARR) was estimated via Kaplan-Meier curve and compared between groups via Log-Rank-Tests.
results3953 PHI and 2032 RHI fulfilled inclusion-criteria. Stem conicity had no impact on 6Y-CARR (p = 0.08 and p = 0.8). Diameter > 13 mm hat an impact on PHI (p = 0.05) with lower 6Y-CARR but not on RHI (p = 0.2). Length > 90 mm showed significantly worst 6Y-CARR in PHI (p = 0.0001) but not in RHI (p = 0.3). Offset-stems showed significantly better 6Y-CARR in PHI (p = 0.04), but not in RHI (p = 0.7).
conclusionThere was no significant impact of the cemented tibia-stem conicity on 6Y-CARR, neither in PHI nor in RHI. The effect of length, diameter and offset on the 6Y-CARR observed in the PHI, was not detectable in the more complex RHI-cases reflecting its limited clinical relevance by itself in more multifactorial backgrounds. Therefore, results must be interpreted with caution due to considerable system-effects and different utilization-scenarios.
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.