ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2021
Two different posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA designs: navigator evaluation of intraoperative kinematic differences.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reproducibility of a new device for robotic-assisted TKA surgery.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare two types of posterior-stabilized (PS) mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The hypothesis was that no major differences were going to be found among the two TKA designs.
methodsTwo cohorts of patients who were divided according to implant design (Cohort A, new design gradually reducing radius PS MB TKA; Cohort B, traditional dual-radius PS MB TKA) were analyzed by means of intraoperative navigation. All operations were guided by a non-image-based navigation system that recorded relative femoral and tibial positions in native and implanted knees during the following kinematic tests: passive range of motion (PROM), varus-valgus stress test at 0° and 30° (VV0, VV30) and anterior/posterior drawer test at 90° of flexion (AP90).
resultsThere were no significative differences in kinematic tests between the two implants. Cohort A, however, showed a different post-implant trend for VV0 and VV30 that were lower than the pre-implant ones, as expected, while for Cohort B, the trend is opposite. However, the gradually reducing radius prosthesis (Cohort A) showed a trend of improving stability (29% compared to the preoperative status) in mid-flexion (VV30) which the traditional dual-radius design (Cohort B) would not. Moreover, we found no differences among postoperative results of the two TKA designs.
conclusionDespite design variations, no difference has been found among the prostheses in terms of PROM, rotations and translations. Both design kinematics did not show paradoxical external rotations, but an increase in femoral translation in mid-flexion without affecting the functioning of the prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31993972What 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.