ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2022
Biomechanics and Outcomes of Modern Tibial Polyethylene Inserts.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Medial pivot, bicruciate retaining and co: Evidence of modern insert and implant designs].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- The Effects of Biomechanical Loading on the Tibial Insert After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Modern Total Knee Arthroplasty Bearing Designs and the Role of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere have been many attempts to use variations in tibial polyethylene design to better recreate normal knee kinematics in the total knee arthroplasty. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the various types of tibial inserts that exist and review the theoretical mechanics versus what was demonstrated in vivo. RECENT
findingsMany polyethylene inserts have been attempted to re-create normal knee kinematics, but none have been able to successfully do so. Previously the only two types of inserts were posterior stabilized (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR) polyethylene inserts. Both of these have shown excellent long-term survival but neither has demonstrated native kinematics. Initially, it was thought that retention of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) would allow for more native kinematics, but fluoroscopic evidence has shown that the PCL alone cannot accomplish this. Newer inserts try to restore femoral roll back and the screw home mechanism. The bicruciate retaining total knee inserts are having the most "normal" kinematics, suggesting the importance of both the ACL and PCL in knee biomechanics. Modern polyethylene inserts show favorable short-term data with bicruciate retaining inserts having the best kinematics; however, long-term studies are still needed to determine if survivorship and patient outcomes remain favorable.
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.