↓ Skip to main content

The Female Knee: Anatomic Variations and the Female‐specific Total Knee Design

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
The Female Knee: Anatomic Variations and the Female‐specific Total Knee Design
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, September 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11999-008-0536-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan C. Merchant, Elizabeth A. Arendt, Scott F. Dye, Michael Fredericson, Ronald P. Grelsamer, Wayne B. Leadbetter, William R. Post, Robert A. Teitge

Abstract

The concept and need for a gender-specific or female-specific total knee prosthesis have generated interest and discussion in the orthopaedic community and the general public. This concept relies on the assumption of a need for such a design and the opinion that there are major anatomic differences between male and female knees. Most of the information regarding this subject has been disseminated through print and Internet advertisements, and through direct-to-patient television and magazine promotions. These sources and a recent article in a peer-reviewed journal, which support the need for a female-specific implant design, have proposed three gender-based anatomic differences: (1) an increased Q angle, (2) less prominence of the anterior medial and anterior lateral femoral condyles, and (3) reduced medial-lateral to anterior-posterior femoral condylar aspect ratio. We examined the peer-reviewed literature to determine whether women have had worse results than men after traditional TKAs. We found women have equal or better results than men. In addition, we reviewed the evidence presented to support these three anatomic differences. We conclude the first two proposed differences do not exist, and the third is so small that it likely has no clinical effect. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
United States 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 124 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 11 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 35%
Sports and Recreations 15 12%
Engineering 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 36 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 April 2022.
All research outputs
#14,307,749
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,338
of 7,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,601
of 99,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#41
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 99,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.