Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30649620›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019

Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retained implants for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Filippo Migliorini, Jörg Eschweiler, Markus Tingart, Björn Rath

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@hotmail.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1221
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Markus TingartDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Björn RathDepartment of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimA meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing cruciate retaining (CR) versus posterior stabilized (PS) in primary total knee arthroplasty was performed. The outcomes of interest were the Knee Society Rating System, clinical (KSCS) and functional (KSFS) subscales, joint range of motion (ROM), surgical duration and further complications (anterior knee pain, instability and revision rate). MATERIALS AND

methodsThe search was conducted in July 2018, accessing the following databases: Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and Google Scholar. We included only clinical trials level of evidence I and II. During the statistical analysis, we excluded all the studies that affect negatively the I

resultsThe PEDro score reported a good methodological quality assessment. The funnel plot detected a very low risk of publication's bias. We included in this study 36 articles, counting a total of 4052 patients and 4884 procedures. The mean follow-up term for both groups was 3.39 years. The ROM resulted in an overall estimate effect of 2.18° in favor of the PS group. The overall WOMAC showed a result in favor of the PS group. The overall estimate effect of the KSCS was 0.02% higher in the CR group. The KSFS showed an overall estimate effect of 2.09% in favor of the PS group. Concerning the surgical duration, the estimate effect resulted in 6.87 min shorter in the CR group. No differences were reported across the two groups regarding anterior knee pain, knee joint instability or revision rate.

conclusionBoth the prosthetic implants provided to be a safety and feasible solution to treat end-stage knee joint degeneration. The PS implants reported improvements in the knee range of motion and a prolongation of the surgical time. No clinically relevant dissimilarities concerning the analyzed scores were evidenced. No statistically significant relevant differences in complications were detected.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeClinical Trials as TopicHumansKnee JointOperative TimePatient Outcome AssessmentRange of Motion, ArticularCruciate retainPosterior cruciate ligamentPosterior stabilizedTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID30649620
OpenAlexW2908691219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.