Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111342›Full record

ReviewAdvances in orthopedics2022

Cruciate Substituting Implants in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Alexander J Volkmar, Robert Elrod, Justin W Vickery, Charlie C Yang, Gregory G Polkowski, J Ryan Martin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in orthopedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Alexander J VolkmarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0563-5649
Robert ElrodDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Justin W VickeryDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Charlie C YangColorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO 80210, USA.
Gregory G PolkowskiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
J Ryan MartinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of cruciate substituting (CS) total knee replacement has been increasing in popularity. There are numerous factors that have likely contributed to this expansion. The CS philosophy incorporates the ease of use commonly cited by advocates of the posterior stabilized (PS) total knee design with the bone preservation associated with a cruciate retaining (CR) design. The ultra-congruent highly cross-linked polyethylene liner increases stability without an appreciable change in wear. Furthermore, balancing the flexion and extension gaps does not require "titrating" the posterior cruciate ligament, improving the user-friendliness. This paper reviews the nuances of this implant design compared to PS and CR designs as well as provides surgical technique recommendations/considerations.

Identifiers

PMID35111342
PMCPMC8803465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.