ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Mid-level constraint may correct coronal plane imbalance without compromising patient function in patients with severe osteoarthritis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total knee arthroplasty for valgus deformity correction using "inverted cruciform release": technique and outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN ATK 1Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2025Article
- Modern Total Knee Arthroplasty Bearing Designs and the Role of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Primary TKA in patients with major deformities and ligament laxities: promising results of an intermediate constrained implant at mid-term follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Femoral Condyle Insufficiency Fracture After Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Stemless Femoral Component With a Midlevel Constraint Articular Surface.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Satisfactory mid-term outcomes of condylar-constrained knee implants in primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological follow-up.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2020Article
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
introductionMid-level constraint (MLC) in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) offer surgeons the opportunity to obtain a well-balanced varus-valgus balance in the setting of slight ligament imbalance. As such, we sought to evaluate patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), alignment correction, and rate of revision between the MLC group and a cohort of posterior stabilized (PS) knees in a cohort of patients with preoperative degenerative arthritis. MATERIALS/
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of 57 MLC knees and 96 PS knees from a single manufacturer that were implanted by a single surgeon. We found the average age (68.91 vs. 68.40, p = 0.72), average BMI (30.88 vs. 29.14, p = 0.10), and gender breakdown (25:32 vs. 28:69, p = 0.08) to be comparable between the two cohorts. The latest follow-up was 4.0 years in the MLC group and 3.8 years in the PS group, p = 0.26.
resultsThe two cohorts inherently resulted in significantly different preoperative deformities (MCL knees: average varus deformity 13.75°, average valgus deformity 12.37°; PS knees average varus deformity 15.14°, average valgus deformity 10.8°). There were more valgus knees in the MLC group (36 vs. 22 (p < 0.001), respectively), but the postoperative alignment was the same. MLC cohort: preoperative varus group had 4.74° of valgus postoperatively, preoperative valgus group had 5.43° of valgus postoperatively. PS cohort: preoperative varus group had 5.40° of valgus postoperatively, preoperative valgus group had 4.80° of valgus postoperatively. We found a significant difference in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KSCRS-Total) between the two groups (MLC 163.9 vs. PS 132.8, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in terms of Range of Motion (ROM) (MLC 121° vs. PS 122°, p = 0.58), anterior knee pain (MLC 1.75 vs. PS 1.81, p = 0.39), or Pain VAS (MLC 25.1 vs. PS 28.6, p = 0.46). There was similar rate of revision between the cohorts (3.5% MLC vs. 2.10% PS, p = 0.13). There was no significant difference in manipulation rate (8.78% MLC vs. 9.40% PS, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated that the use of MLC in TKA allows surgeons to correct preoperative deformities with equal or improved functional outcomes compared to PS knees. In general, we recommend that surgeons try to balance the knee and use the least amount of constraint possible but should consider MLC when needed and use such implants if they are unable to balance the varus-valgus gap.
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.