PATIENT-MATCHED INSTRUMENTATION Versus (vs) STANDARD INSTRUMENTATION: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING POSTOPERATIVE AXIAL ALIGNMENT and COMPONENT POSITION
Abstract
\- Title: PATIENT-MATCHED INSTRUMENTATION VS. STANDARD INSTRUMENTATION: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING POSTOPERATIVE AXIAL ALIGNMENT and COMPONENT POSITION
* Short Title: Visionaire Alignment
* Methodology: Monocentric, Single Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial
* Study Duration: November 2010 to July 2014
* Study Centres: Leicester General Hospital, United Kingdom (UK)
Conditions: Osteoarthritis of the Knee.
Primary outcome: Axial Alignment.
Enrollment: 70 participants.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 70 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- The potential and limitations of neutrons, electrons and X-rays for atomic resolution microscopy of unstained biological molecules
- X-ray-Computed Tomography Contrast Agents
- Reactivity of Surface Species in Heterogeneous Catalysts Probed by In Situ X-ray Absorption Techniques
- Single-crystal X-ray diffraction studies on structural transformations of porous coordination polymers
- Investigation of solid/vapor interfaces using ambient pressure X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
- Resonant X-Ray Scattering Studies of Charge Order in Cuprates
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.