ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Bicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and Bicruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty With Midterm Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA) combined with patellofemoral arthroplasty and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR-TKA) at a mean postoperative period of five years.
methodsA retrospective comparative study was conducted, including 16 knees in the BKA group and 39 knees in the BCR-TKA group. Demographic data and clinical outcomes, such as the 2011 Knee Society Score (2011 KSS), Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), and knee range of motion (knee ROM), were collected and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was six years for the BKA group and five years for the BCR-TKA group. Preoperative evaluations, including the 2011 KSS (except for patient expectations) and knee ROM, showed no significant differences between the groups. At the final follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed in the 2011 KSS or FJS-12. However, knee ROM was significantly greater in the BKA group (141.9° ± 6.0° vs. 130.0° ± 10.7° for BCR-TKA, p < 0.05). No revisions were required in the BKA group, while one knee (2.6%) in the BCR-TKA group underwent revision surgery due to persistent pain.
conclusionBKA demonstrated comparable patient-reported outcome measures to BCR-TKA and provided significantly greater knee ROM. BKA may be a viable treatment option for knees with degeneration and symptoms limited to the medial compartment and the patellofemoral joint.
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.