ReviewJB & JS open access
Cruciate-Retaining Implants Do Not Provide a More Natural Joint Feeling Than Cruciate-Substituting Implants in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Posterior cruciate ligament management in medial pivot total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a patient-reported outcome measure developed to assess joint awareness, potentially differentiating between "good" and "excellent" outcomes. Prosthetic designs, specifically cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting (cruciate sacrificing/substituting [CS]) implants, may influence joint awareness due to differences in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) preservation. Our objective was to compare the joint awareness outcomes, measured by the FJS, between CR and CS implants in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to March 2024 without date or language restrictions. Studies comparing CR and CS implants reporting FJS outcomes were included. Data extracted included study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, follow-up durations, and FJS scores. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Intervention-I tool. A random-effects meta-analysis using Hedges g was performed, with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression to explore heterogeneity. Results: Seventeen cohort studies involving 4,245 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that CS implants were superior to CR implants in terms of FJS (Hedges g = -0.39; p = 0.018), indicating a small to medium effect size favoring CS designs. High heterogeneity was observed (I Conclusion: CS implants are associated with superior joint awareness compared with CR implants in TKA, as measured by the FJS. Despite the theoretical advantage of PCL preservation, CR implants did not demonstrate better joint awareness. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to study heterogeneity and limitations in study design. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these results.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.