ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2024
Comparing Outcomes of Bicruciate-Stabilized and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Excellent midterm functional and clinical outcomes of bi-cruciate retaining versus cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty: A prospective cohort study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and patient-reported joint noise after total knee arthroplasty using saddle-shaped rotating-platform and bi-cruciate-stabilized implant-surgical systems: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of kinematically aligned TKA with medial stabilized design vs. mechanically aligned TKA with bi-cruciate stabilized design: A propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Review
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
Background: Bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Conventional cruciate-retaining (CR) design in TKA has shown previous clinical success with lower complication rates. This study compared the patient-reported outcomes between the BCS and CR TKA designs. Methods: This retrospective study examined patients who underwent primary TKA using a CR or a BCS implant. Patient demographics, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compared between two cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed using independent samples Results: There were no significant preoperative demographic differences between groups. The CR cohort (n = 756) had significantly higher average KOOS, JR Scores compared to the BCS cohort (n = 652) at 3 months (59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9, Conclusions: The CR cohort performed better on average, compared to the BCS cohort in measures of KOOS, JR scores at the 2-year follow-up. The BCS cohort performed marginally better regarding FJS only at 1-year follow-up.
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.