ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Impact of osteoarthritis aetiology and implant constraint on the risk of secondary patellar resurfacing after total knee arthroplasty: An analysis of German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) data.
Article in Journal of experimental 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The benefit of patella resurfacing (PR) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains debated. While outcomes appear similar, unsurfaced patellae show higher revision rates. Existing studies are limited by heterogeneous cohorts. This study assessed the risk of secondary PR in relation to the level of constraint and primary procedure complexity (idiopathic vs. posttraumatic osteoarthritis). Methods: Using registry data, 258,669 primary TKAs without primary PR were analysed. Demographics, implant constraint and subsequent revisions were recorded. The primary endpoint was secondary PR (without additional femoral or tibial implant removal) over a follow-up period of up to 8 years. Results: Cruciate-retaining (CR) designs showed the lowest revision risk (ca. 1%), whereas posterior-stabilised (PS) designs showed the highest (ca. 2.0-2.5%, hazard ratio = 1.8 [95% confidence interval = 1.66-1.99], Conclusions: Registry data indicate higher revision risk with PS versus CR designs, regardless of index surgery complexity. Level of Evidence: Level III.
Indexed as
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.