Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23117166›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2014

Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ning Li, Yang Tan, Yu Deng, Liaobin Chen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06170931 (Comparison Of Outcomes After Bilateral Simultaneous Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Posterior-Substituting Versus Cruciate-Retaining Prostheses), which is not on this map. Cited by 68 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06170931 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Of Outcomes After Bilateral Simultaneous Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Posterior-Substituting Versus Cruciate-Retaining Prostheses

TypeinterventionalSponsorBezmialem Vakif UniversityRan2021 to 2024Enrolled24ConditionsTotal Knee ArthroplastyArmsposterior cruciate ligament-retaining prostheses, posterior cruciate ligament-substituting prostheses
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Can pain be improved with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament during total knee arthroplasty?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ning LiDepartment of Orthopedics, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yang Tan
Yu Deng
Liaobin Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the outcomes between posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to evaluate which approach is superior.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing posterior cruciate-retaining with posterior stabilized TKA were reviewed which were published up to August 2011. Methodological quality of each included RCT was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The relevant data were analysed using Review Manager 5.1. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the quality of the evidence.

resultsEight RCTs involving 888 patients with 963 knee joints met predetermined inclusion criteria. The postoperative range of motion (ROM) and flexion angle were 11.07° and 2.88° higher for patients with a posterior stabilized TKA than those with a posterior cruciate-retaining TKA, respectively [weighted mean difference (WMD), -11.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), -18.06 to -4.08; p < 0.01 and WMD, -2.88; 95% CI, -5.63 to -0.12; p = 0.04]. No statistical differences were observed between the two designs for knee society pain score, extension angle, 2- and 5-year knee society score, 2- and 5-year knee society function score and complications after primary TKA.

conclusionPosterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized TKA have similar clinical outcomes with regard to knee function, postoperative knee pain and the other complications. Prosthesis survivorship for both posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized TKA is satisfactory, and there are no differences between them at short- and middle-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansKnee JointModels, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePosterior Cruciate LigamentPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRange of Motion, ArticularRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID23117166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.