ArticleActa orthopaedica2023
Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiostereometric measurement of implant migration in robotically assisted vs conventional bi-cruciate stabilized cemented total knee arthroplasty: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Trial
- Long-term outcomes of single-radius total knee arthroplasty in an Asian population: a comparison of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized designs.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Article
- Pooling data for primary total knee implants across national registries: is the same implant used in multiple registries and for the same patient group? An observational study.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Observational
- Comparable joint awareness and implant survival at midterm follow-up between CR and PS TKA: An anatomic phenotype-based propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Safety notices and registry outlier data measure different aspects of safety and performance of total knee implants: a comparative study of safety notices and register outliers.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Influencing factors of chronic pain after total knee replacement in osteoarthritis patients: a nomogram prediction model.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeWhile registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR. PATIENTS AND
methodsData from the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group.
resultsUncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6-6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8-4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2-1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses.
conclusionWe found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening.
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.