| Title |
Does malalignment affect revision rate in total knee replacements: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1604-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammed Hadi, Tim Barlow, Imran Ahmed, Mark Dunbar, Peter McCulloch, Damian Griffin |
| Abstract |
To ensure implant durability following Modern total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, one long held principle in condylar total knee arthroplasty is positioning the components in alignment with the mechanical axis and restoring the overall limb alignment to 180° ± 3°. However, this view has been challenged recently. Given the high number of TKR performed, clarity on this integral aspect of the procedure is necessary. To investigate the association between malalignment following primary TKR and revision rates. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using a computerised literature search of Medline, CINHAL, and EMBASE to identify English-language studies published from 2000 through to 2014. Studies with adequate information on the correlation between malalignment and revision rate with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were considered for inclusion. A study protocol, including the detailed search strategy was published on the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews. From an initial 2107 citations, eight studies, with variable methodological qualities, were eligible for inclusion. Collectively, nine parameters of alignment were studied, and 20 assessments were made between an alignment parameter and revision rate. Four out of eight studies demonstrated an association between a malalignment parameter and increased revision rates. In the coronal plane, only three studies assessed the mechanical axis. None of these studies found an association with revision rates, whereas four of the five studies investigating the anatomical axis found an association between malalignment and increased revision rate. This study demonstrates the effect of malalignment on revision rates is likely to be modest. Interestingly, studies that used mechanical alignment in the coronal plane demonstrated no association with revision rates. This questions the premise of patient specific instrumentation devices based on the mechanically aligned knee when considering revision as the endpoint. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 43% |
| Engineering | 13 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,354,849
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#932
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,596
of 393,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#58
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 393,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.