ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Study on Three Different Designs of Locking Mechanisms in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The locking mechanism of the fixed-bearing tibial insert is a crucial factor in total knee arthroplasty. Previous studies have predominantly been retrieval-based, with no research examining the forces required for disassembly and assembly based on the design of the tibial insert's locking mechanism. This study aimed to measure the disassembly and assembly forces of three different locking mechanism designs. Group 1 featured a dovetail design, Group 2 had a peripheral rim design, and Group 3 combined a snap-fit mechanism with a dovetail design. Among the groups, Group 1 exhibited the highest disassembly force (379 ± 42 N), followed by Group 3 (342 ± 58) and then Group 2 (269 ± 18). Similarly, Group 1 also demonstrated the highest assembly force (71 ± 3); however, Group 3 showed a lower assembly force (48.7 ± 2.1) compared to Group 2 (49.7 ± 1.5). These results suggest that design modifications can produce mechanisms requiring minimal assembly force while maintaining strong resistance to disassembly. Due to its snap-pit structure, Group 3 exhibited the lowest assembly force while utilizing the dovetail mechanism to demonstrate a strong disassembly force. The rigorous analysis and robust methodology employed in this study ensure the reliability of the findings, which can serve as a reference for future research and development in this field.
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.