Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40390854›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025

Comparable joint awareness and implant survival at midterm follow-up between CR and PS TKA: An anatomic phenotype-based propensity score-matched analysis.

Lars-Rene Tuecking, Tobias Welzel, Max Ettinger, Henning Windhagen, Peter Savov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lars-Rene TueckingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift Hannover Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3370-7064
Tobias WelzelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift Hannover Germany.
Max EttingerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift Hannover Germany.
Henning WindhagenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift Hannover Germany.
Peter SavovDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Hannover Medical School, Diakovere Annastift Hannover Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Recent studies highlight the role of joint awareness and the influence of preoperative anatomy on outcomes of cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior-stabilized (PS) implants in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There is currently a lack of studies comparing CR and PS prostheses while adjusting for important anatomical parameters and anatomical phenotypes with large group sizes. Methods: This retrospective single-centre study analyzed patients who underwent primary TKA with the Triathlon® CR or PS implant system from 2008 to 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 6.5 years. Patients were matched using propensity scores based on demographics (age, gender and body mass index) and preoperative anatomic angle parameters (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibia angle, hip-knee-ankle angle [HKA], arithmetic HKA and joint line obliquity) and Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) types. Outcome data included patient-reported outcomes (PROMs: Forgotten Joint Score, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, visual analogue scale and University of California at Los Angeles), demographic data, post-operative clinical course data. Statistical analysis was conducted using R, with significance set at Results: A total of 728 patients (513 CR and 215 PS) were included, leaving 519 patients (346 CR and 173 PS) being analyzed after propensity score matching. Joint awareness and further clinical scores showed no differences between CR and PS implants ( Conclusion: No differences were found in the joint awareness of CR and PS prostheses in the medium to long-term follow-up, while controlling for preoperative anatomy. Similarly, there were no significant variations in implant survival. Noticeably higher revision rates in the valgus CPAK phenotypes were found for both systems. A high valgus LDFA angle was identified as a risk factor for revisions in PS systems. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Indexed as

CRimplant survivaljoint awarenessPStotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID40390854
PMCPMC12086798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.