Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772976›Full record

ArticleOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025

[Medial pivot, bicruciate retaining and co: Evidence of modern insert and implant designs].

Johanna-Maria Simon, Philipp von Roth

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Johanna-Maria SimonKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Muskuloskelettales Universitätszentrum München (MUM), LMU Klinikum, LMU München, München, Deutschland. johanna.simon@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Philipp von RothSporthopaedicum Straubing, Straubing, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of rising numbers in primary total knee arthroplasty, alternative insert designs are being established, which are supposed to show superior results in terms of knee joint kinematics, clinical results and long-term survival in comparison to the traditional cruciate retaining or posterior stabilized insert designs. MEDIAL PIVOT: The medial pivot design presents equivalent results to the cruciate retaining design with presumed superiority combined with kinematic alignment. DUAL PIVOT: Current data for the dual pivot design is still very limited. A benefit in comparison to traditional insert designs has not yet been demonstrated. ULTRACONGRUENT: Forthe ultracongruent design, similar clinical results and revision rates as for the posterior stabilized design have been shown so far, but a superiority in this respect cannot be indicated. BICRUCIATE RETAINING: The bicruciate retaining design does not present as a meaningful alternative to the traditional insert designs due to a more challenging surgical technique and significantly increased revision rates based on aseptic partial loosening.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis DesignEvidence-Based MedicineHumansBiomechanicsEvidence-based medicineKnee jointPosterior cruciate ligamentTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.