| Title |
Does malalignment affect patient reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2790-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammed Hadi, Tim Barlow, Imran Ahmed, Mark Dunbar, Peter McCulloch, Damian Griffin |
| Abstract |
Total knee replacement is an effective treatment for knee arthritis. While the majority of TKAs have demonstrated promising long-term results, up to 20 % of patients remain dissatisfied with the outcome of surgery at 1 year. Implant malalignment has been implicated as a contributing factor to less successful outcomes. Recent evidence has challenged the relationship between alignment and patient reported outcome measures. Given the number of procedures per year, clarity on this integral aspect of the procedure is necessary. To investigate the association between malalignment and PROMS following primary TKA. A systematic review of MEDLINE, CINHAL, and EMBASE was carried out to identify studies published from 2000 onwards. The study protocol including search strategy can be found on the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews. From a total of 2107 citations, 18 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, comprising of 2214 patients. Overall 41 comparisons were made between a malalignment parameter and a PROM, with 30 comparisons (73 %) demonstrating no association. However, 50 % (n = 9) of the studies with 'Low risk' radiological assessment methods have reported a statistically significant association between one or more parameter of malalignment and PROMS. When considering malalignment in an individual parameter, there is an inconsistent relationship with PROMs scores. Malalignment may be related to worse PROMs scores, but if that relationship exists it is weak and of dubious clinical significance. However, this evidence is subject to limitations mainly related to the methods of assessing alignment post operatively and by the possibility that the premise of traditional mechanical alignment is erroneous. Larger longitudinal studies with a standardised, timely, and robust method for assessing alignment outcomes are required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 38% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,751
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,262
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,201
of 365,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#175
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.