ArticlePloS one2026
Anatomical fit of the oneKNEE tibia design using statistical shape modeling.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimModern tibial implants should be designed to achieve an optimal anatomical fit. The aim of this study was to evaluate how well a newly developed tibial implant design (oneKNEE® - B. Braun Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) matches patient anatomy compared to three existing implant systems, using Statistical Shape Models (SSM).
methodSSMs for Caucasian and Asian populations were generated using CT scans of 120 Caucasian and 112 Asian osteoarthritic patients. Border anatomical variations were represented by individual anatomies from 14 Caucasian and 12 Asian patients. Tibial components were positioned in accordance with strict protocols established by senior knee surgeons (YM, NK). The anatomical fit was analyzed across all four implant systems in terms of antero-posterior and medio-lateral dimensions, tibial coverage and cortical bone support. Global tests for homogeneity and Dunnett's tests were performed.
resultsBony coverage for Asian and Caucasian populations ranged from 82.9% to 88.4% for long-established designs and from 85.0% to 91.2% for more recently introduced designs. Among all designs, the oneKNEE® implant demonstrated superior bony coverage and cortical support, followed by Attune® (Depuy-Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA), Columbus® (B. Braun Aesculap), and PFC Sigma® (Depuy-Synthes). For average anatomies, oneKNEE® showed significantly better bony coverage and cortical score compared to Columbus® and PFC Sigma® (P < 0.01). In less average anatomies, oneKNEE® exhibited statistically superior bony coverage compared to PFC Sigma®, although no significant difference was observed in cortical support.
conclusionCompared with established tibial implant designs, the new design demonstrated improved virtual anatomical fit and coverage metrics based on computational modeling. These findings reflect a theoretical design‑level improvement and require biomechanical and clinical validation.
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.