Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42852545›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2026

Developing a new CT-based bone defect classification in revision knee arthroplasty : a Delphi consensus study.

Maaike R de Bondt, Simon N van Laarhoven, Gijs G van Hellemondt, Andrew Porteous, Bone Defect Classification Expert Group, Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Paolo Adravanti, Abtin Alvand, Michele d'Amato and 30 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. 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

40 authors.

Maaike R de BondtDepartment of Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0839-3112
Simon N van LaarhovenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7625-4259
Gijs G van HellemondtDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Andrew PorteousNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Bone Defect Classification Expert Group
Gabriëlle J M TuijthofDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Petra J C HeesterbeekDepartment of Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Paolo Adravanti
Abtin Alvand
Michele d'Amato
Andrea Baldini
Cecile Batailler
Johan Bellemans
Friedrich Boettner
Stefano Campi
Sebastiaan van de Groes
Andreas Halder
Michael Hirschmann
Siegfried Hofmann
William Jackson
Gareth Jones
Lucien Keijser
Robin van Kempen
Wolfgang Klauser
Peter Koch
Vicente J León-Muñoz
Nick London
Sébastien Lustig
Thomas Luyckx
Sam Oussedik
Jonathan Phillips
Stefano Rossi
Federica Rosso
Emmanuel Thienpont
Hilde Vandenneucker
Ben Waterson
Frank-Christiaan Wagenaar
Remco van Wensen
Tommy de Windt
Francesco Zambianchi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: To seek consensus on the principles and criteria necessary to develop a CT-based bone defect classification (BDC) for revision knee arthroplasty. Methods: A three-round structured Delphi study was conducted. First, five interviews were held with international knee revision experts to support the development of 29 statements. Two consecutive rounds of Delphi survey statements were distributed among 56 international knee revision experts in the first round, and to 37 in the second round. Consensus (≥ 80% agreement) was sought on the statements covering bone defect definitions, imaging, and zonal assessment. Results: A total of 37 experts responded to the first survey round, and 34 also completed the second round. Consensus was reached on 93% of the statements after both survey rounds. Experts agreed that a BDC should guide both surgical planning and implant selection, and that CT imaging improves knee revision bone defect assessment. Consensus was also reached on the definition of a bone defect. While anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis) were considered important for inclusion in a BDC, the results showed no consensus on which landmarks define these anatomical zones. Conclusion: The expert panel indicated that CT evaluation and distinct assessment of anatomical zones are essential in a (new) BDC, although no consensus was reached on the definition of those anatomical zones. Moreover, a CT-based BDC should be useful for guiding surgical planning and implant selection.

Identifiers

PMID42852545
PMCPMC13641884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.