ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Isolated aseptic loosening in total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive 10-year review of partial vs. total component revisions.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn total knee arthroplasty (TKA), isolated aseptic loosening (IAL) requires the replacement of prosthetic components, with ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of partial component revision (PCR) compared to total component revision (TCR). This study aims to compare implant survival and surgical outcomes between PCR and TCR in the context of IAL.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from 285 patients who underwent revision TKA for IAL between January 2000 and December 2013. After applying exclusion criteria, 112 patients were included in the analysis-60 undergoing TCR and 52 undergoing PCR.
resultsPCR was associated with shorter operative times and hospital stays compared to TCR, alongside significant differences in the choice of revision prostheses. Although the prosthesis failure rates were comparable between the groups (13.6% for TCR and 18.33% for PCR), significant risk factors for failure were identified, including a canal filling ratio (CFR) below 0.8 and a discrepancy over 0.2 between CFR views. However, no significant differences in overall survivorship were observed between the groups.
conclusionsBoth PCR and TCR provide similar survival rates and clinical outcomes for managing IAL in TKA. PCR provides advantages in terms of surgical efficiency and patient recovery, while reducing the need for more constrained prosthetic solutions. The study identifies CFR as a critical predictor of prosthesis failure, highlighting the importance of detailed preoperative planning and implant selection. These findings contribute valuable insights for improving revision strategies in IAL, enhancing surgical outcomes in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.