ArticleBone & joint open2026
A 15-year evaluation of two total knee arthroplasty designs : similar patient-reported outcomes and survivorship but divergent patellofemoral and radiological outcomes.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To compare 15-year patient-reported outcomes measure (PROMs), pain characteristics, implant survivorship, and radiological findings between two total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems to determine whether modern implant design influenced outcomes. Methods: A minimum 15-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial was undertaken of patients undergoing primary TKA with either the Kinemax or Triathlon implant. We compared 15-year survivorship, mortality, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs: Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS)), pain and location, and radiological assessments between groups. Results: There were nine revisions during the follow-up period (six aseptic and three septic), and there was no difference between the groups (p = 0.721, log-rank). A total of 108 deaths occurred, corresponding to 50.7% (95% CI 44.1 to 57.3) patient mortality at 15 years, with no difference between groups (p = 0.603, log-rank). Overall, 61 patients completed functional assessment at 15 years (mean age 80 years (SD 8.5); 41 female (67%)). There were no statistical (p ≥ 0.170) or clinically meaningful differences between groups in OKS, FJS, EQ-5D, EQ VAS, or satisfaction. Longitudinal analysis demonstrated no between-group differences in postoperative OKS or EQ-5D. However, both declined significantly over the study period (p < 0.001), but remained clinically meaningfully better than those observed preoperatively. Pain VAS scores were comparable, although anterior knee pain was more frequent in the Kinemax group (OR 3.2, p = 0.037). Radiological assessment showed no loosening. Tibial zone 1 radiolucent lines (OR 12.1, 95% CI 2.6 to 57.6, p < 0.001) and severe patellofemoral osteoarthritis (OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.4 to 18.4, p = 0.010) were more prevalent in the Kinemax group. Conclusion: Both implants were associated with comparable PROMs, and despite deterioration with increasing follow-up, they remained superior to preoperative scores. The Kinemax group demonstrated higher rates of anterior knee pain, though this difference did not result in clinically meaningful outcome disparities.
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.