ArticleCureus2024
A Prospective Randomized Study on Whether Computer Navigation Is Better Than Conventional Total Knee Replacement in Terms of Short-Term Functional and Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Long-term outcomes of computer-assisted Ci™ navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
- Progress in Computer-Assisted Navigation for Total Knee Arthroplasty in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis with Extra-Articular Deformity.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComputer navigation results in better radiological alignment in total knee replacement (TKR). However, functional and clinical outcomes are equally good in conventional TKR. This study aims to compare the functional and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing navigated and conventional TKR.
methodsA prospective randomized study between navigated TKR (NKR/Group I) and conventional TKR (CKR/Group II) was carried out. Functional outcome was analyzed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Clinical outcome was evaluated as knee range of motion.
resultsThirty-nine patients (68 knees) were randomized into two groups: I and II. The mean follow-up was 26 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to knee range of motion, OKS, and WOMAC score at the final follow-up.
conclusionWe concluded that there is no difference in clinical and functional outcomes between navigated and conventional TKR.
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.