ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Does the femoral component design modified in consideration of Asian anatomical characteristics fit better than the conventional design for Korean femora in reality?
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sex differences of proximal tibia anthropometry in a Chinese population: comparison with sizing of tibial implants.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to investigate the anatomical and clinical advantages of an Asian-specific femoral component design with a high femoral aspect ratio, compared with the conventional femoral component design. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of the operation and outpatient clinic records of 239 knees operated on using an anatomically modified femoral component design (MFCD, Group A) and 153 knees operated on using a conventional femoral component design (CFCD, Group B) in Korean patients was performed. Three subgroups were created based on the mediolateral size of the two different femoral component designs. The geometric accommodation of each femoral component was assessed using intraoperatively measured femoral posterior condylar resection and posterior condylar trimming amounts. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome measurements.
resultsIn the comparison between Groups A and B, the mean combined bilateral posterior condylar trimming (XPCT) was 2.91 [2SD: - 4.12-9.94] and 1.45 [2SD: - 5.89-8.80], and the median XPCT was 3 and 1.5. In the largest subgroup (subgroup 2), Groups A and B included 100 and 112 patients, all six posterior condylar resection and trimming parameters were significantly larger in Group A. Preoperative and postoperative ROM and Hospital for Special Surgery scores were similar between the two groups. Preoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) was higher in Group A. However, postoperative WOMAC was similar between the groups. Perioperative improvement in WOMAC index was significantly greater in Group B.
conclusionsThe Asian-specific femoral component design resulted in more resection and trimming of the femoral posterior condyle than the conventional design despite it was not associated with different clinical outcomes. Surgeons should be aware of unexpected excessive posterior condylar resection and formation of large flexion gap when using femoral component design with high femoral aspect ratio.
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.