↓ Skip to main content

Do Stemmed Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty Improve Outcomes in Patients With Obesity?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Do Stemmed Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty Improve Outcomes in Patients With Obesity?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4791-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sébastien Parratte, Matthieu Ollivier, Alexandre Lunebourg, Nicolas Verdier, Jean Noel Argenson

Abstract

Recent clinical studies have reported that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) are more likely to experience premature failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), lower knee scores, and perhaps more pain in the prosthetic joint. However, it is not known whether certain implant design features such as tibial stems might be associated with differences in the frequency of tibial pain in patients with higher BMIs. Therefore, it was our aim to compare (1) function and pain (as measured by the New Knee Society Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], and visual analog pain scores); (2) quality of life (as measured by SF-12); and (3) mechanical complications and premature revision (defined as revision before 2 years) between patients with obesity undergoing TKA (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) who received either a stemmed or an unstemmed tibial component. In this randomized controlled trial, 120 patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m(2) scheduled for primary arthritis TKAs and end-stage knee osteoarthritis were included. Patients were stratified into groups defined as moderately obese (BMI 30-35 kg/m(2), N = 60) and severely obese (BMI > 35 kg/m(2), N = 60) groups. Patients in each stratified subgroup then were randomized to receive either a stemmed (10 mm/100 mm) proximally cemented tibial component or the other, a standard cemented component. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 2 years after surgery using the new Knee Society Score (KSS), KOOS, SF-12 score, and a visual analog pain score after 100 meters of walking. Although no minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) have yet been defined for the new KSS, we considered differences smaller than 10 points to be unlikely to be clinically important; the MCID for the KOOS is estimated at 8 to 10 points, the SF-12 to be 4 points, and the visual analog scale to be 2 cm on a 10-cm scale. Patients were followed until death, revision, or for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3 ± 0.8 years; range, 2-4 years). No patient was lost to followup before 2 years. Although we found that patients treated with stemmed TKAs had higher functional outcomes, the differences were small and unlikely to be clinically important (subjective KSS mean 69 ± 7 points versus 75 ± 7, mean difference 6 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-11, p = 0.03; objective KSS mean 80 ± 6 points versus 85 ± 6 points, mean difference 5 points, 95% CI 0-9, p = 0.01). Compared with patients with a stemmed TKA, patients with a standard implant reported lower KOOS pain subscores (81 ± 9 versus 76 ± 8; p = 0.04) and lower KOOS symptom subscores (74 ± 7 versus 68 ± 7; p = 0.03). The proportions of patients experiencing complications were not different with the numbers available for all groups and subgroups. Although we detected differences in some patient-reported outcomes scores for pain and function favoring implants with stems, the differences were small and unlikely to be clinically important. Because these stems may have disadvantages, perhaps including difficulty of revision, we cannot draw a strong conclusion in support of their use. Level I, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 21 13%
Other 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 47 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 58 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,038,934
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#265
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,614
of 315,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#6
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 315,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.