| Title |
Berliner diagnostischer Algorithmus der schmerzhaften Knie-TEP
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Die Orthopädie, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00132-015-3196-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. Thiele, J. Fussi, C. Perka, T. Pfitzner |
| Abstract |
Approximately 20 % of patients are unsatisfied with their postoperative results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Main causes for revision surgery are periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosing, instability and malalignment. In rare cases secondary progression of osteoarthritis of the patella, periprosthetic fractures, extensor mechanism insufficiency, polyethylene wear and arthrofibrosis can cause the necessity for a reintervention. Identifying the reason for a painful knee arthroplasty can be very difficult, but is a prerequisite for a successful therapy. The aim of this article is to provide an efficient analysis of the painful TKA by using a reproducible algorithm. Basic building blocks are the medical history with the core issues of pain character and the time curve of pain concerning surgery. This is followed by the basic diagnostics, including clinical, radiological, and infectiological investigations. Unique failures like periprosthetic infection or aseptic loosening can thereby be diagnosed in the majority of cases. If the cause of pain is not clearly attributable using the basic diagnostics tool, further infectiological investigation or diagnostic imaging are necessary. If the findings are inconsistent, uncommon causes of symptoms, such as extra-articular pathologies, causalgia or arthrofibrosis, have to be considered. In cases of ongoing unexplained pain, a revision is not indicated. These patients should be re-evaluated after a period of time. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 64% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
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 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Die Orthopädie
#276
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,645
of 380,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Orthopädie
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 380,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.