ArticleCureus2026
Rotating Hinge Knee Versus Constrained Condylar Knee Revision: A Single Centre, Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In revision total knee arthroplasty, rotating hinge implants (RHK) have been presumed to result in higher complication rates and lower survivorship when compared to constrained condylar implants (CCK). This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complication rates and survivorship of RHK and CCK used in revision arthroplasty at a single, high-volume elective orthopaedic centre with a previously validated bespoke database. Methods Patients (n=108) who underwent revision knee arthroplasty with either CCK or RHK and matched our inclusion criteria were identified. EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ5D), EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ5D)-Health State and Oxford Knee Scores were collected pre-operatively and at one year post-operatively. Complication data was collected at six weeks, six months and one year post-operatively. National Joint Registry (NJR) data were interrogated, in addition to our orthopaedic database, to investigate implant survival with a maximum follow-up of 12 years. Results There was no statistical significant difference between RHK and CCK in implant survival at two to 12 years of follow up. In addition, we observed no statistical significant difference in the PROMs scores and complication rates of the two implants. Conclusion This study shows that both the RHK and CCK remain viable options in revision arthroplasty; the implant survival and complication rates were comparable. We recommend future research through prospective randomised control trials with long-term follow up to further investigate the use of CCK and RHK implants in revision knee arthroplasty.
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.