ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Reliability and utility of the new Belt et al. classification for revision of infected total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe frequency of revisions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising. Various classifications of bone defects exist, each with its own limitations. Recently, Belt et al. have proposed a new classification for TKA revisions based on X-ray imaging. We evaluated the Belt et al. classification and verified if this new classification is reliable, and if it correlates with the implant used during revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection.
methodsThis is a retrospective study. We reproduced the paper proposed by Belt et al. with the radiological data of all patients who underwent two stage revision for infected TKA in our institution between January 2017 and December 2022. Five different operators classified the bone defect for each patient at two time points. Subsequently, we assessed intra- and inter-operator reproducibility. We also collect the surgery data from our registry to verify if there is a correlation between augment use and epiphyseal bone defect.
resultsThe classification proposed by Belt is reliable, and have a good reproducibility inter and intraoperator. There is no correlation between the bone defect. And the use of augment, and so this classification is usless in the prediction of the material needed in the operating room.
conclusionThe Belt at al. classification is reliable, but a classification which can predict the implant neded have to be developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39891734What 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.