ArticleOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Medial pivot, bicruciate retaining and co: Evidence of modern insert and implant designs].
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40772976What 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.