ArticleBone & joint open2026
Comparison of CT-based migration analysis against radiostereometric analysis for assessing two-year migration in an uncemented medial pivot tibial knee implant : clinical implications from a prospective safety study.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is the gold standard for migration analysis of orthopaedic implants, but CT-based RSA has shown comparable results in an increasing number of joints. In this study, we compared the method in an uncemented medial pivot tibial implant. Our primary outcome measure was maximum total point motion (MTPM). Secondary measures were segmental and feature point migration parameters, range of motion (ROM), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), effective radiation doses, and time usage. Methods: A total of 31 patients were prospectively included to receive an uncemented medial pivot knee implant using mechanical alignment (MA) with conventional instruments. Migrations were measured up to 24 months with marker-based RSA, model-based RSA, and CT-based RSA. Clinical data were measured using a goniometer and patient-reported outcome measures ((PROMs); FJS-12 and KOOS). Results: Migrations at 24 months for MTPM showed a mean of 1.09 mm (95% CI 0.78 to 1.40) for marker-based RSA, 1.17 mm (95% CI 0.85 to 1.49) for model-based RSA, and 0.74 mm (95% CI 0.45 to 1.04) for CT-based RSA. MTPM for CT-based RSA was lower than both RSA methods (p < 0.001). Differences increased between the methods at all timepoints, but migrations stabilized for all methods. Time usage (min:sec) for performing RSA radiographs was 17:02 and 4:10 for CT. FJS-12 score increased from 12.3 at baseline to 70.4 at 24 months; and KOOS increased for all sub-scales. ROM increased by 12.4° (95% CI 5.6 to 19.3). Conclusion: For clinical importance, the uncemented GMK Sphere shows a stable migration pattern using all methods and can therefore be considered safe. CT-based RSA shows lower migration values of an uncemented medial pivot tibial implant up to 24 months compared with conventional RSA.
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.