ArticleBMC surgery2023
Does design change in total knee arthroplasty implants affect patient-reported outcomes?
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bicruciate-stabilized TKA Does Not Result in Improved Patient-reported Outcomes Compared With Posterior-stabilized TKA: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Bilateral Simultaneous TKA.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Trial
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the early results of patient-reported outcomes between two generations of a total knee system.
methodsBetween June 2018 and April 2020, 121 first-generation, cemented TKAs (89 patients) and 123 s-generation, cemented TKAs (98 patients) were performed by a single surgeon. Demographic and surgical data were collected from all patients. Starting at the 6-month follow-up, patient-reported outcome measures Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Reconstruction (KOOS-JR) and Knee Society (KS) clinical and radiographic scores were prospectively recorded. This study represents a retrospective review of these prospectively collected data.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic variables such as age, body mass index, gender and race. KOOS-JR and Knee Society (KS) scores improved significantly (p < 0.001) from their preoperative values in both device generations. There were no differences, pre-operatively, between the two groups in terms of KOOS-JR, KS functional, KS objective, patient satisfaction, and expectation scores; however, there were statistically significant (p < 0.001) lower values of KOOS-JR and KS functional scores for first versus second generation at 6 months (81 vs. 89 and 69 vs. 74, respectively).
conclusionWhile significant improvement in KS objective, subjective, and patient satisfaction scores were noted with both knee systems, KOOS-JR and KS function scores were significantly higher at the early (6-month) follow-up in the second-generation group. Patients responded acutely to the design change as evidenced by significantly improved patient-reported outcome scores for the second generation.
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.