Home
ACE Reports
All Specialties All Specialties All Specialties Arthroplasty Arthroplasty Arthroplasty Evidence Based Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Foot & Ankle Foot & Ankle Foot & Ankle General Orthopaedics General Orthopaedics General Orthopaedics Hand & Wrist Hand & Wrist Hand & Wrist Metabolic Disorders Metabolic Disorders Metabolic Disorders Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritis Pediatric Orthopaedics Pediatric Orthopaedics Pediatric Orthopaedics Peri-Operative Peri-Operative Peri-Operative Physical Therapy & Rehab Physical Therapy & Rehab Physio & Rehab Shoulder & Elbow Shoulder & Elbow Shoulder & Elbow Spine Spine Spine Sports Medicine Sports Medicine Sports Medicine Trauma Trauma Trauma Tumour Tumour Tumour Author Interviews Author Interviews Author Interview Conference Report Conference Report Conference Reports
Original Content
News
Multimedia
About
Search
Home
ACE Reports
Arthroplasty Evidence Based Medicine Foot & Ankle General Orthopaedics Hand & Wrist Metabolic Disorders Osteoarthritis Pediatric Orthopaedics Peri-Operative Physical Therapy & Rehab Shoulder & Elbow Spine Sports Medicine Trauma Tumour Author Interviews Conference Report
Original Content
News
Multimedia
About
Search
Previous Ace Report Migration of mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee system similar over 6-year follow-up Next Ace Report Migration of cemented versus uncemented, hydroxyapatite fixation in total knee arthroplasty
Ace Report Cover
Arthroplasty
Ultracongruent tibial insert vs. posterior-stabilized implant in total knee arthroplasty
Reprints
Cite This
Reprints
Cite This
AceReport Image
Arthroplasty
Ultracongruent tibial insert vs. posterior-stabilized implant in total knee arthroplasty
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Nov;25(11):3515-3521
Contributing Authors

J Lützner S Kirschner J Dexel C Lützner F Beyer H Fritzsche

136 patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty were randomized to an ultracongruent tibial insert or a posterior-stabilized total knee implant. Patients were assessed over a 1-year follow-up. Groups did not demonstrate any significant differences in knee range of motion or function on the UCLA activity score at 1 year. Oxford Knee Scores were significantly greater in the UC group compared to the PS group at 1 year, primarily due to the Pain subscore.

Unlock the full article

Get unlimited access to OrthoEvidence with a free trial
Start Trial

Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics

Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics

Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions

Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics

Or continue reading this full article
Register Now
AskOE
Search
Close Search Window
Welcome Back!
Forgot Password?
Create an Account

Account will be affiliated with

OR
Forgot Password?
OR
Check your email

If an account exists with the provided email address, a password reset email will be sent to you. If you don't see the email, please check your spam or junk folder.

For further assistance, contact our support team.

Cite this Ace Report

OrthoEvidence. Ultracongruent tibial insert vs. posterior-stabilized implant in total knee arthroplasty. ACE Report. 2018;8(6):5. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Report/

Copy Citation
Share this Ace Report