ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2024
Are asymmetric designs of tibial components superior to their symmetric counterparts for constrained condylar total knee arthroplasty using metal block augmentation?
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial: Challenges and advances in revision total joint arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2025Article
- Tibial morphological difference between metal augmentation and actual tibia for revision total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery & related 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn total knee arthroplasty (TKA), asymmetric tibial components have been developed alongside symmetric tibial components to enhance bony coverage at the tibia. In primary TKA and revision TKA for patients with significant bone defects, augmentation is employed to fill the bone defect. However, there have been no reports on bony coverage of the tibial component of the revision system in the cases of bone defects. Therefore, we simulated bone defects using CT and compared the bony coverage of asymmetric and symmetric tibial components in the revision TKA system.
methodsThis study included 45 patients (50 knees involved) with medial osteoarthritis. Preoperative CT scans were used to simulate placement using ZedKnee. Three models were evaluated: Persona Revision PCCK (Zimmer) for the asymmetric component, NexGen LCCK (Zimmer) for the symmetric component, and the ATTUNE revision system (Depuy-Synthes). A 130-mm stem extension was utilized. Augmentations of each thickness were placed to simulate bone defects of 5, 10, and 15 mm. The coverage, overhang, and underhang rates were measured for each slice and compared among the models.
resultsIn terms of coverage, the rate was greater for PCCK at 0 mm, and only ATTUNE exhibited a significantly lower coverage at 5 and 10 mm. There was no significant difference in coverage at 15 mm. At 0 mm, PCCK demonstrated less posterior underhangs. At 5 and 10 mm, PCCK showed less anterior overhang but more anterior underhang. At 15 mm, PCCK had a less anterior overhang, with an overhang in the posterior region but less underhang. When overhang and underhang were combined and compared, the asymmetric component generally yielded superior results.
conclusionIn the cases of bone defects, asymmetric components demonstrated reduced anterior overhang and decreased posterior underhang, resulting in greater bone coverage. This may contribute to improved long-term outcomes in the revision TKA system.
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.