ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Evaluating the Impact of Patellar Resurfacing in Medial Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Impact of Patellar Resurfacing in Medial Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a debated topic. Medial stabilized (MS) implants have gained popularity in the United States in recent years as they more closely mimic native femoral-tibial and patella-femoral knee kinematics. However, little is known about the effects of patellar resurfacing with a specific round-on-round, one-to-one congruent, medial stabilized implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing influences pain, function, patient-reported outcomes, and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing primary MS TKA with this implant.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 107 patients undergoing primary MS TKA with the Sphere implant (Medacta International, Castel San Pietro, SZ). Patients were divided into resurfacing (R, n = 51) and non-resurfacing (NR, n = 56) groups. Outcomes included pain scores, range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and perioperative variables. PROs collected included PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference CATs, Knee Society Score (KSS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score (0-100), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), patellofemoral pain questionnaire, and the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) patellofemoral scoring system. Comparative statistical analyses were performed using chi-square tests, t-tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsNo significant differences were found in postoperative pain scores (VAS), opioid consumption, or overall PROMs between groups. However, the non-resurfacing group demonstrated greater ROM at 12 months (121.5° vs. 116.4°, p = 0.03) and higher KOOS ADL and symptom subscales. Resurfacing was associated with increased operative time (p < 0.001) and tourniquet time (p = 0.03); hospital LOS was shorter in the resurfacing group by six hours (p < 0.05).
conclusionIn MS TKA, patellar resurfacing did not confer significant advantages in pain relief or functional outcomes at one year. These findings support an individualized approach to patellar resurfacing in MS TKA as each technique is deemed non-inferior.
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.