Trial reportJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2018
Fixed-bearing versus high-flexion RP total knee arthroplasty (TKA): midterm results of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- No difference between mobile and fixed bearing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Pooled it
- Mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Pooled it
- Is high flexion total knee arthroplasty a rewarding procedure? An updated meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is safe and effective at a minimum follow-up of 4.2 years: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes in total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty: adjusting for demographic influences.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Fixed-Bearing and Higher Postoperative Knee Flexion Angle as Predictors of Satisfaction in Asian Patients Undergoing Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of risk factors for aseptic loosening in cemented total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Ten- to 14-Year Results of a High-Flex Rotating Platform Knee Implant: A Follow-Up Report of a Prospective Cohort.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the midterm results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using PFC Sigma RP-F mobile model with PFC Sigma PS fixed model. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, we analyzed 50 knees that underwent TKA with PFC Sigma RP-F and 60 knees with PFC Sigma PS fixed model. The follow-up period ranged from 76 to 104 months.
resultsThe knee score, function score, and radiographic evaluation were significantly not different between the two groups at final follow-up. No revisions, subluxations, dislocations, or infections were seen. Also, no radiographic evidence of component loosening, osteolysis, or malalignment was observed in any knee. The results for both groups show good patient satisfaction.
conclusionsThe midterm clinical and radiographic results of the two prostheses did not show significant differences between the two groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level of evidence is level II.
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.