ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2017
Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2017. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cruciate-Retaining Versus Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Outcomes of cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Two different posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA designs: navigator evaluation of intraoperative kinematic differences.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) - retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients with severe varus gonarthrosis.
methodsMedical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty for severe varus (≥15°) were reviewed. PCL-retaining and PCL-stabilizing groups consisted of 58 and 54 knees, respectively. Mean follow-up time was 56.6 months (range: 24-112 months). Knee Society (KS) clinical rating system was used in clinical evaluation. Range of motion, degree of flexion contracture, postoperative alignment, and complication rates were compared between the groups.
resultsMean preoperative mechanical tibiofemoral angle was 20.1° in varus alignment, and was restored to 4.6° in valgus postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were found between PCL-stabilizing and PCL-retaining groups when KS knee scores, function scores, and flexion arc were evaluated. Two patients in PCL-retaining group underwent revision surgery due to aseptic loosening of tibial component. One patient in PCL-stabilizing group needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunk syndrome.
conclusionThere were no notable differences between the 2 groups and PCL-retaining design had outcomes as good as PCL-stabilizing total knee implant in osteoarthritic knees with severe varus deformity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.
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.