ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Comparison of traditional PS versus kinematically designs in primary total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of accuracy and early outcomes in robotic total knee arthroplasty using NAVIO and ROSA.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Analysis of gender differences with traditional posterior stabilized versus kinematic designs in total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeKinematically designed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Traditional posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA designs, on the other hand, simplify knee kinematics and may improve TKA cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent primary TKA using either a traditional PS or kinematically designed TKA.
methodsThis retrospective study examined all patients who underwent primary TKA using either a kinematically or a traditional PS designed TKA implant, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patient demographics, complications, readmissions, revision rates and causes, range of motion (ROM) and patient reported outcomes (KOOS, JR) were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed to estimate freedom from revision, and multivariate regression was performed to control for confounding variables.
resultsA total of 396 TKAs [173 (43.7%) with a kinematic design, 223 (56.3%) with a traditional design] with a mean follow-up of 3.48 ± 1.51 years underwent analysis. Revision rates did not differ between groups (9.8% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.418). In Kaplan-Meier analysis at 2-year follow-up, freedom from all-cause revision (96.4% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.139) were similar between groups. The two cohorts had no significant difference in aseptic loosening at 2 years (99.6% vs. 97.1, p = 0.050) and at latest follow up (92.7% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.279). KOOS, JR scores and post-operative ROM were similar between groups.
conclusionThis study demonstrated similar mid-term outcomes following the use of both a kinematically designed and a traditionally designed implant in primary TKA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective study-III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36625899What 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.