ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Medial femoral condyle restoration technique in total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo introduce a medial femoral condyle restoration (MFCR) technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and compare its clinical outcomes with conventional mechanical alignment (MA) in varus osteoarthritis.
methodsIn this prospective randomized trial, 126 consecutive patients with varus osteoarthritis undergoing TKA (January 2021-January 2023) were assigned to MFCR or MA. MFCR surgical key points were medially focused quantitative compensation of cartilage loss by reducing distal/posterior medial femoral resections using thickness-specific shims (0.5-2.0 mm, 0.5-mm steps) guided by Outerbridge grading and calibrated probing. Participants were randomized to receive either the MFCR technique or the conventional MA technique. Intraoperative outcomes (blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, and medial release) and postoperative ROM were recorded; functional outcomes included WOMAC and walking VAS pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance.
resultsThe mean age of the MFCR group and control group was 68.3 ± 7.4 years and 67.9 ± 8.7 years, respectively (P = 0.4236). Preoperatively, the mean WOMAC score of the groups was 67.2 ± 9.8 and 62.3 ± 16.4, respectively (P = 0.2524). The mean varus knee angle was 18.2° ± 7.2° and 17.3° ± 8.9°, respectively (P = 0.6735). The mean time for soft tissue balancing was 5.1 ± 2.6 min and 12.1 ± 4.3 min in the MFCR and control group, respectively (P = 0.017). The mean operative time was 50.6 ± 12.1 min and 58.9 ± 13.8 min in the MFCR and control group, respectively (P = 0.011). The mean hospital stay time was 1.8 ± 0.7 days and 3.2 ± 0.9 days in the MFCR and control group, respectively (P = 0.028). At 2 years postoperatively, the WOMAC scores were 29.9 ± 17.9 and 43.6 ± 13.7, respectively (P = 0.0325). Postoperative nausea/vomiting occurred less frequently in the MFCR group (P = 0.0391), with no other complications observed during follow-up.
conclusionMFCR restored the anatomy of the medial femoral condyle by quantitatively preserving medial femoral bone to compensate for cartilage loss within a bony-first, minimal-release workflow. Compared with MA, MFCR reduced perioperative burden and improved early function, and can be implemented using a simple, reproducible technique without advanced imaging or robotics. Video Abstract.
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.