ArticleJB & JS open access
In Silico Modeling Validation and Contact Pressure Distribution Comparison Analysis of Conventional and Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) improves recovery, but optimizing load remains challenging. This study measures tibiofemoral contact pressures after conventional and robotic UKA in cadavers and validates a finite element (FE) model against experimental data. Methods: Sixteen fresh-frozen cadaveric lower limbs underwent medial UKA with conventional cutting guides (n = 8) or CORI robotic assistance (n = 8). Medial (implanted) and lateral (native) compartment pressures were recorded from 0° to 90° using pressure film sensors. The FE model replicated and was validated against these measurements. Results: Medial compartment pressure decreased significantly from 1.864 MPa at 0° to 0.252 MPa at 90° (p < 0.05). The lateral compartment showed a similar significant decrease from 0.733 MPa to 0.320 MPa (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between conventional and robotic-assisted techniques (p > 0.05). The FE model demonstrated strong agreement with the measured data, with r Conclusion: Conventional and robotic-assisted UKA techniques demonstrated similar contact pressure profiles. However, increased force and area in the native lateral compartment may predispose to postoperative degeneration. The FE model reliably predicted contact behavior and may be especially useful in refining conventional UKA techniques. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.