ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2015
Retained versus resected posterior cruciate ligament in mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a retrospective, clinical and functional assessment.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Pooled it
- All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFully conforming, mobile-bearing total knee replacement (TKR) was initially designed using a posterior cruciate-sacrificing (CS) technique. Rotating-platform TKR that could also be performed retaining the posterior cruciate developed afterwards. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who had either cruciate-retaining (CR) or cruciate-sacrificing (CS) TKR at a minimum follow-up of 2 years with the same prosthetic design.
methodsOne hundred and two consecutive TKR (88 patients) were performed at the same institution either with CS (56 TKR-49 patients) or with CR (46 TKR-39 patients) technique. Patients were followed at a minimum of 2 years. Patients were evaluated for articular range of motion, complication rate (infection, loosening) and clinical outcome measures included the pain and functional components of the Knee Society Score.
resultsThe two groups (CS, CR) were homogeneous. At final follow-up, no significant difference was seen between the two surgical techniques in terms of ROM, pain and functional level, and revision rate.
conclusionsThis study showed that for this given mobile-bearing, fully conforming prosthetic design, sacrificing or resecting the PCL does not influence the clinical and functional outcomes at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Surgeons may indifferently choose one of the two options (CS, CR) according to their preferences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25573818What OpenQuestion holds
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.