ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Third-generation posterior-stabilised cemented system for total knee arthroplasty: Survivorship and outcomes after 20-year follow-up.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- High Tibial Osteotomy for Knee Osteoarthritis with Genu Varum: A Retrospective, Observational Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Third-generation posterior-stabilised cemented system for total knee arthroplasty: Survivorship and outcomes after 20-year follow-up.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Total knee arthroplasty is a common procedure due to increased life expectancy and ageing populations, necessitating implants with long-term efficacy. After some initial designs, the third-generation modular posterior-stabilised NexGen® prosthesis aimed to enhance kinematics and reduce complications. This study evaluates the long-term outcomes, survivorship, revision rates and complications of this implant. With promising results observed up to 15 years in previous studies, this investigation aims to assess the implant's performance over extended follow-up periods, aiding in optimal implant selection for improved patient outcomes. Methods: We carried out a retrospective study on 263 total knee arthroplasties performed in our centre between 1998 and 2002. Statistical analysis of complications was performed and study of survival using the Kaplan-Meier method and competing risk analysis were calculated. Description of reinterventions and complications were also included. Results: Results show a 20-year prosthesis survival rate of 90.8% for revision due to any reason, with an estimated survival of 92.3% considering competitive events. Estimated survivorship at 20 years is 98% for aseptic loosening as the end point, and an estimation of 98.80% considering competitive events. Twenty revisions were performed, with 10 cases due to infection and 10 for noninfectious reasons and three of them due to aseptic loosening. Radiographic analysis revealed radiolucent lines, but no clinical evidence of loosening was observed in these cases. Conclusion: This study offers survivorship data from longer follow-up periods, what is difficult to find in the reported literature and showed excellent results of this implant in terms of survivorship and low rates of revision in our cohort. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.