Trial reportActa orthopaedica2025
Assessment of improvement in functional outcomes between a novel knee replacement design and conventional designs in 240 patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. 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.
- Patient-reported outcomes and complications of a new-generation total knee system: a randomized controlled trial.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Trial
- A novel knee implant for total knee arthroplasty meets expectations at 10 years. First long-term follow-up report of clinical outcomes and survivorship.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Editorial: Why the randomized controlled trial is still at the apex and the gold standard for evaluating new medical and surgical interventions.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Medial-Pivot Total Knee Arthroplasty with Kinematic Alignment Produces Similar Clinical Outcomes in Valgus and Varus Deformities.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe introduction and development of new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant designs are industry driven. To date, an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide evidence of the superiority of novel implant designs over conventional ones is often lacking. The aim of our RCT was to investigate the functional outcomes of a novel TKA implant design compared with 2 conventional TKA designs. Primary outcome was difference in the change in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were Forgotten Joint Score, 15D quality of life questionnaire, UCLA activity score, and complications.
methodsWe compared functional outcomes between a novel TKA implant design (Persona CR) and 2 conventional designs (NexGen CR, PFC CR). 240 patients with severe knee osteoarthritis were recruited to a pragmatic, single-center, prospective, parallel-group RCT between September 2015 and August 2018. The duration of follow-up was 2 years.
resultsOf 240 randomized patients, 225 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age 61.8 years; 67.5% females). The OKS exceeded minimal clinical important difference (MCID) from baseline to 2 years in all 3 treatment groups (Persona CR: 18.9 points, PFC CR: 20.3 points, NexGen CR: 19.4 points). At 2 years the difference between Persona CR and PFC CR in the change score was -1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.6 to 1.7). Similarly, the difference between Persona CR and NexGen CR was -0.9 (CI -3.6 to 1.9). At the time of final follow-up evaluation, OKS was equivalent between groups, as CI excluded between-group differences larger than 4 points.
conclusionWe showed no clinically relevant differences in functional outcomes measured with OKS, 15D, or FJS between the 2 conventional implant designs and the novel implant design at 2-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.