↓ Skip to main content

Kinematic femoral alignment with gap balancing and patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Kinematic femoral alignment with gap balancing and patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00590-016-1865-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hagen Hommel, Matthew P. Abdel, Carsten Perka

Abstract

While patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) allows for transfer of the preoperative plan onto bony landmarks, the soft tissue balancing is not affected. The goals of this randomized clinical trial were to compare PSI and the measured resection technique (conventional) with PSI and the gap balancing technique. Fifty patients were randomized to TKA with conventional PSI (PSI-S) (n = 25) or to PSI with additional gap balancing (PSI-GB) (n = 25). All patients were clinically examined at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Data on the range of motion, the Knee Society Score, the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the High-Flexion Knee Score (HFKS), and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compiled at follow-up. Statistically significant improvements were found for all clinical parameters in the PSI-GB group compared to the PSI-S group at 3 months postoperatively and for FS, FJS, and HFKS at 12 months. However, the relevance of these differences, as well as their effect on long-term outcomes, needs to be evaluated further. In conclusion, patient-specific instrumentation combined with gap balancing yielded good early clinical outcomes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 23%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 28 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,334,964
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#317
of 877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,825
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 877 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 319,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 73% of its contemporaries.