SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2015
Comparison of High-Flexion and Conventional Implants in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kneeling and standing up from a chair as performance-based tests to evaluate knee function in the high-flexion range: a randomized controlled trial comparing a conventional and a high-flexion TKA design.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Trial
- Short-term Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes, and Survivorship Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Novel High-Flexion System among Indian Patients.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Novel reciprocal interaction of lncRNA HOTAIR and miR-214-3p contribute to the solamargine-inhibited PDPK1 gene expression in human lung cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether high-flexion prostheses are superior to conventional prostheses after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIAL AND
methodsWe searched the PubMed and Embase databases for randomized trials and cohort studies comparing high-flexion with conventional knee implants. The heterogeneity across studies was examined by I2 and Cochran's Q-tests. Then the overall weighted mean differences of range of motion (ROM) and knee functional scores were evaluated.
resultsA total of 16 trials involving 2643 knees met our inclusion criteria. The results revealed that high-flexion implants were superior to conventional implants in the improvement of range of motion (weighted mean difference, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.63-4.22; p<0.0001). The clear advantage of high-flex PS (posterior stabilized) as well as high-flex CR (cruciate retaining) implants was found in ROM when compared to PS implants (2.73; 95% CI, 1.27-4.20; p=0.0003) and CR implants (3.24; 95% CI, 0.28-6.20; p=0.003), respectively. However, there was no difference in Knee Society Scores (0.42; 95% CI, -0.60-1.43; p=0.42), Knee Society function (0.37; 95% CI, -1.48-2.22; p=0.70) and Hospital for Special Surgery scores (0.26; 95% CI, -0.47-1.00; p=0.48) between high-flexion and conventional groups.
conclusionsThe current meta-analysis revealed that high-flexion implants were superior to conventional implants in the improvement of ROM but not in functional outcome scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.