ArticleBone & joint research2026
Asymmetric metaphyseal cones versus medial modular block augment with central cone for medial tibial defects : a biomechanical comparison in varying bone quality.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Managing large medial tibial bone defects during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains technically demanding, particularly in elderly patients. This study quantitatively compares two reconstructive strategies: 'bridging' the defect using an asymmetric metaphyseal cone versus 'anatomical reconstruction' employing a symmetrical cone with a metallic block augment, and assesses their sensitivity to osteoporotic bone quality. Methods: A finite element model of a tibia with a standardized medial defect (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Type 2a) was adapted to simulate both configurations under physiological loading cycles in healthy and severe osteoporotic bone. Cumulative interface micromotion was quantified using a coordinate-based post-processing algorithm that decouples normal separation from tangential shear. A parametric sweep of the tangential contact clearance evaluated near-surface biological interaction zones without additional simulations. Results: In healthy bone, both strategies demonstrated adequate stability with micromotions predominantly below 50 μm. In osteoporotic bone, the asymmetric cone exhibited a loss of stability, characterized by intermittent lift-off during walking and excessive tangential shear during stair descending. This instability induced a toggle effect at the distal stem. The augmented symmetrical cone maintained stable fixation regardless of bone quality. Expanding the tangential contact clearance revealed considerable unrecognized shear risk surrounding the asymmetric cone, while the augmented construct remained insensitive to this parameter in the high-risk range (> 100 μm). Conclusion: Asymmetric cones are viable in good bone stock but exhibit instability in osteoporosis due to the cantilever effect. Anatomical reconstruction with a modular augment and central cone provides a predictable, load-sharing structural column, making it the preferred strategy for large medial defects in osteoporotic patients.
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.