ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
A historical journey through total knee arthroplasty: the evolutionary milestones.
Review in International orthopaedics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to examine historical progressions to demonstrate how current debates in alignment philosophy, implant personalization, robotic surgery, and ligament management serve as direct extensions of past concepts.
methodsThe history of TKA was divided into four major evolutionary phases: the era of experimentation between 1860 and 1970, the period of implant design and biomechanical standardization between 1970 and 2000, the rise of personalization and morphologic understanding between 1985 and 2020, and the modern era of perioperative and technological evolution beginning in the early 2000's.
resultsOne of the earliest total joint replacement concepts was introduced in 1890 by Gluck, who implanted an ivory hinged knee prosthesis fixed with primitive cement materials. Modern hinged knee arthroplasty emerged during the 1950s to address severe arthritis and ligamentous instability, which constrained out-of-plane movement by allowing only flexion-extension. During the 1980s, modularity and mobile-bearing concepts gained widespread popularity. Metal-backed tibial components allowed polyethylene exchange and improved intraoperative flexibility, a concept exemplified by the Insall Burstein Posterior Stabilized II prosthesis. Beginning in the late 1980s and accelerating during the 1990s and early 2000s, researchers increasingly recognized that standardized implant geometries did not accurately reproduce native anatomy in many patients. During the 2000s and 2010s, alignment philosophy underwent a major paradigm shift. The twenty-first century introduced major advances in digital surgery.
conclusionThe future of total knee arthroplasty will be shaped by advances in implant design, surgical methods, digital technologies, and biologic reconstruction. These trends continue the goal of mimicking native knee anatomy, biomechanics, and function. Future implants will likely shift from standard components to more personalized solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42566058What 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.