ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Two- to Six-year Assessment of Survivorship and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rotating Hinge Knee Prostheses With Porous Tibial Cone Augmentation.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Aseptic revision from one rotating-hinge to another rotating-hinge prosthesis - how good are the results?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
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
Background: Rotating hinge knee (RHK) implants are a highly constrained prosthesis designed for knee arthroplasty cases involving significant knee instability. RHK systems are often augmented with metaphyseal tibial cones (MTCs). This study investigated structural stability and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of RHKs with MTC augmentation. Methods: All RHKs utilizing MTC were identified at a single institution from 2016 to 2021. Patients returned for radiographic evaluation, physical exam, and PROs. A total of 84 knees (80 patients) were identified, 44 cases (43 patients) followed up greater than 2 years after their RHK procedure. A cumulative incidence function curve was constructed, and failure was defined as a subsequent revision. PROs included Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-10. Patient Acceptable Symptom State and postoperative rating of improvement scores were collected. Results: Cumulative incidence function all-cause failure (N = 84) was 18% at 2.8 years. The diagnoses for failed cases were infection (6 cases), mechanical failure (1 case), and persistent pain (1 case). The mechanical failure was due to loosening of the femoral component requiring femoral only revision. No follow-up cases (N = 44) demonstrated evidence of loosening at the MTC-RHK interface, median follow-up time of 3.82 years. Mean range-of-motion was 0°-120°. Mean PROs were 61.4 for Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, 41.2 for PROMIS Mental Health, and 47.9 for PROMIS Physical Health. Patient Acceptable Symptom State was attained by 68% of follow-up cases and 75% reported moderate or better improvement in their quality of life after their RHK. Conclusions: RHK with MTC augmentation did not reveal any cases of loosening of the MTC with only 1 case of femoral loosening. Level of Evidence: III.
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.