ArticleScientific reports2025
Laboratory validation of patient-specific templating for total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-specific templating (PST), which is a sister procedure to patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) but hospital-based, is relatively less complex and less expensive than robotics and navigation. However, there are some concerns about the PST including the process of preoperative planning, 3D printing and material, positioning of PST intraoperatively, availability, and clinical value. The purpose of this study was to validate the technical accuracy and reliability of the PST technique in the lab and to report the outcomes of clinical application. To test the reliability of the PST technique, five observers positioned the PST templates five times over the distal femur and proximal tibial whilst a navigation system was used to measure the level of bone cutting, coronal and sagittal alignment, and rotation in both femur and tibia. The mean alignment error in all planes was 0.67° (maximum 2.5°). Concerning the bone (femoral and tibial) cutting, the mean error was 0.32 mm (maximum 1 mm). The qualitative and quantitative analysis showed an overall agreement between observers (p < 0.05). The laboratory part of this study showed that the positioning of the PST over the proximal tibia and distal femur during TKA is reliable. There were statistically insignificant intraobserver and interobserver variations.
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.