Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40256778›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025

Surgical factors that contribute to tibial periprosthetic fracture after cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: a finite element analysis.

Xiaoyi Min, Laurence Marks, Stephen Mellon, Takafumi Hiranaka, David Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Xiaoyi MinNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Laurence MarksNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Stephen MellonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Takafumi HiranakaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Joint Surgery Centre, Takatsuki General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
David MurrayNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Tibial periprosthetic fracture (TPF) is a severe complication of cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) with patient risk factors including small tibial size and tibia vara with an overhanging medial tibial condyle. Surgical factors also influence fracture but remain poorly defined. This finite element (FE) analysis study identified surgical risk factors for TPF after OUKR and determined the optimal tibial component positioning to minimise fracture risk. Methods: Knees in two very high-risk, small, bilateral OUKR patients who had a TPF in one knee and a good result in the other were studied with FE analysis. Each patient's unfractured tibia was used as a comparator to study surgical factors. The tibial geometries were segmented from the pre-operative CT scans and FE models were built with the tibial components implanted in their post-operative positions. The resections in the fractured and unfractured tibias were compared regarding their mediolateral position, distal-proximal position, internal-external rotation and varus-valgus orientation. Models of the TPF tibial resections in the contralateral sides were also built in both patients. The risk of TPF was assessed by examining the magnitude and location of the highest maximum principal stress. Results: In both patients, large differences were found in the position and orientation of the tibial components in the fractured and unfractured tibias with the components in the fractured tibias placed more medially and distally. Suboptimal saw cuts resulted in poor positioning of the tibial components and created very high local stresses in the bone, particularly anteriorly (157 MPa and 702 MPa in the fractured side vs. 49 MPa and 63 MPa in the unfractured side in patient 1 and 2 respectively), causing fractures. Conclusion: In small patients with marked tibia vara the surgery is unforgiving. To avoid fracture, the horizontal cut should be conservative, aiming for a 3 bearing, the vertical cut should abut the apex of the medial tibial spine, and extreme internal or external rotation should be avoided. The component should be aligned with the posterior cortex and should not overhang anteriorly. In addition, contrary to current recommendations, the tibial component should be placed in varus (about 5°).

Indexed as

cementless fixationfinite element analysisfracture riskoxford unicompartmental kneeperiprosthetic tibial fracturesurgical techniques

Identifiers

PMID40256778
PMCPMC12006801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.