Research Article
Evaluation of Satisfaction and Axial Rigidity with Titan XL Cylinders
Table 4
Physician feedback.
| | | n/N (%) |
| | Rate final result (5 = excellent, 1 = poor): | | | 5 | 14/16 (88%) | | 4 | 2/16 (12%) | | 3 | 0/16 (0%) | | 2 | 0/16 (0%) | | 1 | 0/16 (0%) | | What device would you have previously used? | | | Titan | 15/16 (94%) | | AMS CX | 1/16 (6%) | | AMS Ultrex/LGX | 0/16 (0%) | | AMS Ambicor | 0/16 (0%) | | What cylinder size? | | | 21 | 1/16 (6%) | | 22 | 14/16 (88%) | | 24 | 1/16 (6%) | | What RTE size? | | | N | 16 | | Mean ± SD | | | Median (Min, Max) | 3.8 (2, 7) | | 95% CI | 2.9, 4.4 | | Revision subject (yes) | 3/16 (19%) | | Previous device | | | Titan | 3 | | AMS CX | 0 | | AMS Ultrex/LGX | 0 | | AMS Ambicor | 0 | | Cylinder size | | | 18 cm | 1 | | 22 cm | 1 | | RTE size | | | 2 cm | 1 | | 3 cm | 1 |
|
|
