ArticleKnee surgery & related research2025
Tibial morphological difference between metal augmentation and actual tibia for revision total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 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
backgroundAn overhang of the tibial component can cause irritation of the surrounding soft tissues, whereas an underhang is associated with risks of tibial bone resorption. It is not well known whether the tapering angle of currently available blocks at medial, lateral, anterior, and posterior sides matches the actual shape of the proximal tibia. The purpose of this study was to analyze the bony contour of the proximal tibia and measure the tapering angle to examine whether the angle of currently available metal augmentation blocks matches the actual tibia.
methodsComputed tomography of the lower extremities was performed on 100 consecutive knees, and three-dimensional images of the tibia were reconstructed. The primary resection level was determined on the basis of a plane 10 mm below the center of the lateral tibial plateau. The assumed levels were set to 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm below the primary resection level. All points that were 5, 10, 15, or 20 mm below were projected onto the primary resection surface, and the reduction value from the primary level to each level was measured. The tapering angle was calculated on the basis of the reduction value from the primary level to each resection surface at eight areas and compared with the angle of currently available metal augmentation acquired from the company. The distances of mismatch between the metal augmentation and the bone surface were calculated.
resultsThe tapering angle on the medial and lateral sides increased with the more distal resection level, which was up to 30° at the 20 mm level. The tapering angle on the posterior side also increased with the more distal resection level, which was approximately 40° at the 20 mm level. The tapering angle of the current implant was smaller than that of the original tibial morphology. The distances of mismatch varied between implants in which the maximum distance was up to 11.3 mm in the 15 mm augmentation.
conclusionsThe design of current metal augmentation differs from the morphology of the proximal tibia. Surgeons should pay attention to the size mismatch between the femoral and tibial components during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
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.