A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Ten-year results comparing posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty. | LitMetric

Ten-year results comparing posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty.

J Arthroplasty

Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, London Health Science Centre, University Campus, London, Ontario, Canada; University Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Published: February 2015

We compared the 10-year survival rates and clinical outcomes of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior cruciate-substituting (CS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA), using the Genesis II knee system (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN). Our institutional database identified patients undergoing a primary knee with the Genesis II system between 1995 and 2000. These patients were followed for an average of 12.3years (range 10.2-14.4years). There were 143 (34.5%) CR and 271 (65.5%) CS implants. No significant difference in 10-year survivorship was noted between the two cohorts. The postoperative clinical scores (KSCRS, WOMAC, SF-12) and knee ROM were significantly better for the CS cohort. In this large, long-term, single-implant prospective study, CS performed better than CR in terms of clinical scores and range of motion.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.009DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

posterior cruciate-retaining
8
cruciate-retaining versus
8
versus posterior
8
posterior cruciate-substituting
8
cruciate-substituting total
8
total knee
8
knee arthroplasty
8
clinical scores
8
knee
5
ten-year comparing
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!