ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
The performance of cruciate-retaining implants for primary total knee arthroplasty in valgus deformed knees: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Background: Valgus deformity of the knee comprises upwards of 15 % of the deformities in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. 1,2 The two implants most commonly used in valgus deformed knees are posterior stabilizing (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) implants. CR implants may offer a more advantageous construct due to the retention of the PCL for proprioception and less bony resection compared to PS implants. The purpose of this systematic review is to aggregate findings for cruciate-retaining implants used in primary TKA with valgus deformed knees. Methods: In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, databases were queried for CR TKA studies which met the inclusion criteria. Cochrane ROBINS-I and the GRADE framework assessed bias and quality respectively. Results: There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference between preoperative and postoperative valgus deformity as measured by tibiofemoral angle. The all-cause revision rate was 8.3 % in our sample of 710 total knee arthroplasties. Conclusion: This review of the literature demonstrates that, although scarcely reported, cruciate-retaining implants used in primary total knee arthroplasties in valgus deformed knees provide satisfactory outcomes such as arc of motion and knee score. Our results demonstrate a significant increase in all-cause revision when using CR implants for valgus deformed knee. For this reason, further investigations should be conducted to evaluate modes of failure in this specific patient population. Level of evidence: IV systematic review.
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.