ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
"Is every revision the same?" definition of complexity in knee revision surgery.
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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this paper is to define a subset of complex rTKA in terms of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes and complications. The secondary outcome of the authors is to propose a simple and easy-to-use guide for clinical network in rTKA management.
methodsComplex rTKAs were defined according to the presence of at least two of the following features: periprosthetic joint infection, re- revision, femoral and/or tibial massive bone defects, soft tissue impairment, stiffness, fracture requiring fixed component revision.
resultsTwenty-six patients underwent a standard rTKA (group A) while 24 had a complex rTKA (group B). The mean follow-up was 50.2 ± 16.4 months in group A and 49.5 ± 16.8 in group B (p = 0.44). The operative time was longer in group B (200.4 ± 131.4 min vs 110.2 ± 59.8 min). A greater intraoperative total blood loss (3014.2 ± 740.0 vs 2328.5 ± 620.6 ml, p < 0.001), intra and postoperative blood infusion (3.6 ± 1.2 vs 2.1 ± 1.2 units, p < 0.001) was reported in group B. Significant difference was obtained for global complication rate (11.5% group A vs 37.5% group B, p = 0.04), reoperation (7.7% group A vs 33.3% group B, p = p = 0.03) and re-revision (3.8% group A vs 25% group B, p = p = 0.04).
conclusionThis study describes a specific entity of rTKA that require higher surgical effort and increased surgical challenge (measured as increased surgical time, need of transfusions and complications). The proposed classification could provide an easy-to-use tool for quick grading of complexity in rTKA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39052030What 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.