Observational studyArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Retropatellar resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty does not improve clinical outcomes but increases revision rates.
Observational study in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeControversy still remains regarding the necessity of primary retropatellar resurfacing (RPR) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While some studies suggest retropatellar resurfacing reduces anterior knee pain (AKP) and revision rates, others report no significant differences compared to non-resurfaced TKA. This study aims to evaluate postoperative complications, pain levels, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing TKA with and without RPR.
methodsA retrospective, single-center observational study was conducted including 121 patients who underwent primary TKA. Fifty-five patients (45.5%) had RPR, while 66 patients (54.5%) retained their native patella. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the knee society score (KSS), while radiological parameters such as femoral and patellar offset were analyzed. Statistical comparisons were performed using independent t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsRadiological analysis revealed a significant reduction in femoral offset postoperatively (p < 0.001), with greater changes observed in the non-RPR group (p = 0.009). Patellar offset was also significantly reduced in non-RPR patients compared to RPR patients (p < 0.001). The revision rate was higher in the RPR group (10 cases) compared to the non-RPR group (1 case). Functional assessment using the KSS showed no significant differences in knee pain (p = 0.418) or knee scores (p = 0.461) between groups. However, patients in the RPR group were more likely to require walking aids postoperatively (p = 0.012).
conclusionsRPR in primary TKA did not result in superior pain relief or functional outcomes compared to non-resurfacing but was associated with a higher revision rate and increased postoperative use of walking aids. These findings suggest that the decision to resurface should be individualized based on clinical and anatomical considerations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III (Retrospective Cohort).
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.