Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39095924›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2024

Is there an increased revision rate due to early tibial component loosening with a modern total knee arthroplasty design? A retrospective analysis from a large volume arthroplasty centre.

Bernard H van Duren, Jonathan France, Reshid Berber, Hosam E Matar, Peter J James, Benjamin V Bloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  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.

Bernard H van DurenNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. b.h.vanduren@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1877-8227
Jonathan FranceNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Reshid BerberNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Hosam E MatarNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Peter J JamesNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Benjamin V BlochNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Attune TKR was introduced in 2011 as a successor to its predicate design The PFC Sigma. However, following reports of early failures, there are ongoing concerns related to increased loosening rates. Given the concerns, this study aimed to compare revision rates of the Attune implant to an established predicate, and other implant designs used in a high-volume arthroplasty center.

methodsWe identified 10,202 patients who underwent primary cemented TKR at our institution with a minimum of 1 year follow-up, involving 2406 Attune TKR (557 S +), 4642 PFC TKR, 3154 other designs. Primary outcomes were revision for all-causes, aseptic loosening of any component, and aseptic tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression models were used to compare groups. Matched cohorts were selected for radiographic analysis.

results308 knees were revised. The Attune cohort had the lowest risk of revision, with a rate of 2.98 per 1000 implant-years while the PFC and All Other Implant groups had a rate of 3.15 and 4.4 respectively. Aseptic loosing was the most common cause for revision, with 76% (65/88) involving the tibia. Survival analysis showed no significant differences between the Attune and other cohorts. Radiolucent lines were detected in 7.1% of the Attune S + group, 6.8% of the standard Attune group, and 6.3% of the PFC group, with no significant differences found between them.

conclusionThis study represents the largest non-registry review of the Attune TKR in comparison to a predicate and other designs. There was no significant increased revision rate for all-cause revision or aseptic loosening, or peri-implant radiolucencies. It appears that increased loosening may not be as concerning as originally thought. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

LooseningRevisionSurvivalTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39095924
PMCPMC11297728

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.