Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39755774›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Conceptual foundations of a REFRAME-based approach to discriminate across total knee implant designs based on the positions of functional centres of rotation.

Adrian Sauer, Ariana Ortigas-Vásquez, Christoph Thorwaechter, Peter E Müller, Henning Windhagen, Allan Maas, Thomas M Grupp, William R Taylor, Matthias Woiczinski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Adrian SauerResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Am Aesculap-Platz, 78532, Tuttlingen, Germany. adrian.sauer@aesculap.de.
Ariana Ortigas-VásquezResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Am Aesculap-Platz, 78532, Tuttlingen, Germany.
Christoph ThorwaechterDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), Campus Grosshadern, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Peter E MüllerDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), Campus Grosshadern, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Henning WindhagenOrthopaedic Department, Medical School of Hannover, Annastift Hospital, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Allan MaasResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Am Aesculap-Platz, 78532, Tuttlingen, Germany.
Thomas M GruppResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Am Aesculap-Platz, 78532, Tuttlingen, Germany.
William R TaylorLaboratory for Movement Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias WoiczinskiDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), Campus Grosshadern, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In modern knee arthroplasty, surgeons increasingly aim for individualised implant selection based on data-driven decisions to improve patient satisfaction rates. The identification of an implant design that optimally fits to a patient's native kinematic patterns and functional requirements could provide a basis towards subject-specific phenotyping. The goal of this study was to achieve a first step towards identifying easily accessible and intuitive features that allow for discrimination between implant designs based on kinematic data. A squat-cycle was simulated on eight fresh frozen specimens mounted in a weight-bearing knee rig, each initially tested under native conditions, and then after implantation with four different implant types (CR/CS, MS, LS, and PS). The kinematic signals of these five configurations were compared to determine whether key differences between implants could be detected leveraging two methodological approaches: (1) statistical parametric mapping to directly compare waveforms and (2) simple paired t-tests to compare the three-dimensional coordinates of the functional centres of rotation determined using a previously published REference FRame Alignment Method (REFRAME). While statistical parametric mapping of the kinematic data revealed only small differences in certain comparisons (e.g. LS vs. PS, and MS vs. LS) under lenient statistical testing conditions, the application of REFRAME showed clear differences between implants (for all implant combinations except for CR/CS vs. LS), even under conservative statistical testing. Since for most implant combinations, significant differences in the centres of rotation were found using REFRAME, this approach could present a suitable tool for discriminating between the kinematics of different implant types. Preoperative assessment of joint kinematics, combined with this REFRAME application, could therefore provide a key approach for improved clinical selection of implant type.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis DesignRotationAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFemurHumansMaleTime FactorsClinical decision-makingImplant designKinematicsoneKNEE®PhenotypesREFRAME

Identifiers

PMID39755774
PMCPMC11700090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.