ArticleArthroplasty today2020
A Five-Year Comparative Functional and Clinical Evaluation of Two Contemporary Cruciate-Retaining Knee Implants.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation in KOOS JR improvement across total knee implant designs: a cohort study from Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Mid-term results of an anatomic total knee replacement design.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Novel morphogenic knee implant delivers comparable mid-term outcomes as compared to conventional non-morphogenic implants.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Does the anatomic design of total knee prosthesis allow for a better component fit than its nonanatomic predecessor? A matched cohort Study.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Comparative retrieval analysis of antioxidant polyethylene: bonding of vitamin-E does not reduce in-vivo surface damage.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of our study was to compare 2 commonly used highly successful cruciate-retaining knee designs on the basis of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and anterior knee pain (AKP) at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.
methodsA cohort of 65 patients underwent unilateral total knee arthroplasty, from January 2013 to December 2013, using NexGen Cruciate Retaining (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN), a nonmorphogenic knee (NMK) system. They were subsequently operated upon for the contralateral knee using Persona Cruciate Retaining (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN), a morphogenic knee (MK) system between January 2014 and June 2014. Of the 65 patients, 63 participated in this study. All the patients were compared preoperatively and postoperatively on the basis of PROMs, ROM, and AKP.
resultsOn the basis of PROMs, ROM, and AKP, there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups favoring the MK group, with an ROM of 126.14° in the MK group as compared with 120.76° in the NMK group and
conclusionsPROMs, ROM, and AKP improved significantly over time after total knee arthroplasty using both MK and NMK implants; however, the outcomes of the former were better than those of the latter, although this difference was not clinically significant.
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.