ArticleActa clinica Croatica2023
HIGHER REVISION RATES AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING WITH POSTERIOR-STABILISED TOTAL KNEE ENDOPROSTHESIS COMPARED TO THE CRUCIATE-RETAINING TYPE OF THE SAME IMPLANT MODEL- A SINGLE-CENTRE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY ANALYSING 580 TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTIES.
Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 2023. 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 purpose of this study was to evaluate the 4-year survivorship of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) of a single manufacturer and determine whether failure rates differ between the cruciate-retaining (CR) and the posterior-stabilised (PS) type of implant. In addition, possible causes of revision were analysed as well. A retrospective analysis of 580 TKAs, with either the CR or the PS type of the Biotech Future Knee endoprosthesis (BIOTECH GmbH, Garbsen-Berenbostel, Germany) was performed. The 4-year survivorship for revision of any cause in all cases was 89.14%, with aseptic loosening being the most common cause of revision (53.9%). Regarding the type of implant model, the revision rate was higher in the PS group compared to the CR group (13.7% to 8.0%, respectively, p=0.027). The Cox regression models suggested that the type of prosthesis was a significant predictor of the need for revision (HR, 0.442; 95% CI, 0.234-0.833). In conclusion, our study has shown higher revision rates with the PS implant type when compared to the CR implant type with a higher rate of aseptic loosening in the PS group. Further studies are needed to determine the cause of these results and to investigate whether the problem is specific to the implant.
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.