ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Options and limitations of implant constraint.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements in biodegradable implants: evaluation in large animal surgical models.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Rise of Revision Arthroplasties in Indian Subcontinent: An Inadvertent Future.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted Conversion of Arthrodesis to Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Review
- Role and Results of Constrained Insert in Computer-Assisted Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity-Matched Study.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Mid-term outcomes of a kinematically designed cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
- Comparative Functional and Isokinetic Analysis between Implants with Posterior Stabilization and Rotating Hinge Total Knee Arthroplasty.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024Article
- Octogenarians Are the New Sexagenarians: Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Not Inferior to Posterior-Stabilized Arthroplasty in Octogenarian Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
With an ever-increasing number of revisions, the surgeons will be faced with the dilemma of choosing the right implant for the revision knee. The soft tissue viability governs the choice of an implant at the time of revision. The selection ranges from the cruciate-retaining to the rotating/fixed hinge implants. The surgeon needs to plan preoperatively, but usually, the final decisions are made intraoperative. As determining the amount of constraint necessary can be challenging, we have tried to lay down a few pointers, which would help to make that choice. The posterior stabilized implants can manage most revision knees; in certain situations where they cannot accommodate the flexion-extension gap imbalance, a varus-valgus constrained implant should be used. The rotating hinge implants are used for severe instabilities or loss of soft tissue or bone around the knee. The use of a higher constraint implant has its consequences like reduced life span and reduced function. Thus it is crucial to use the least amount of constraint as necessary - however, as much as required.
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.