ArticleSICOT-J2025
Inferior outcome of stand-alone short versus long tibial stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. A retrospective comparative study with minimum 2 year follow-up.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRevision Total Knee Arthroplasty (RTKA) is complex, and induced bone loss might endanger implant fixation and joint stability. Intramedullary stems improve fixation throughout stress redistribution. The current study aims to compare the performance of short tibial stems with long tibial stems, investigating their intermediate-term radiographic and survival outcomes in RTKA. The main hypothesis is that the two types of tibial stems would exhibit similar complication and revision rates in mid-term follow-up.
methodsPatients who underwent RTKA for all causes in a specialized arthroplasty center from 2010 to 2022 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included in this study. Patients receiving mega prosthesis or implants associated with sleeves or cones were excluded. The final groups consisted of 234 knees: 110 patients with short stems (SS) and 124 with long stems (LS). The mean age at surgery was 65.96 ± 8.73 years in SS and 67.07 ± 8.64 years in LS. The mean Body Mass Index (BMI) was 28.95 is SS and 30.88 in LS (p < 0.05). The average follow-up for SS group was 4.24 years and for LS 5.16 years (p < 0.05).
resultsComplications and re-revisions did not differ significantly between two groups (p > 0.05). Pathological radiolucency was present in 20.91% in SS group and 33.87% in LS group (p < 0.02). Time-to-re-revision was shorter in SS group and occurred at a mean of 3.1 years, while LS failed at a mean of 5.1 years (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe SS and LS may be comparable in terms of complications and re-revision. SS significantly fails almost 2 years earlier than long stem (p < 0.001). Additionally, there is a higher tendency for re-revision due to loosening in patients who present pathological radiolucency in SS group. To obtain the benefits of short stem and improve the longevity of the construct; adjuvant zone II (metaphyseal) fixation might be the clue.
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.