Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Orthopedic Reviews logoLink to Orthopedic Reviews
. 2019 Dec 5;11(4):8322. doi: 10.4081/or.2019.8322

Knee surgery: Trends and the 50 most cited articles

David Zargaran 1,✉, Alexander Zargaran 2, Sean Lobo 3, Zameer Shah 1
PMCID: PMC6912142  PMID: 31897282

Abstract

Knee Surgery is one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures, and a rapidly evolving area of research. A bibliographic analysis was conducted to explore the characteristics of the top 50 most cited articles in knee surgery. The Web of Science Core Collection Database was used to search for Knee AND Surgery, further refined for orthopedic surgery, yielding 1,660 articles. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the top 50 cited articles were statistically and thematically analyzed. Year of publication ranged from 1982 to 2014. The highest volume of research came from USA, with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery having the highest number of papers in the top 50. The most common theme of research was Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes. Our study elucidates trends and popular areas of research in the field of knee surgery, and provides researchers with an overview of areas to focus, where there is scope for high-impact original research.

Key words: Knee surgery, orthopedic surgery, citation density, impact factor, bibliographic analysis

Introduction

The turn of the 21st Century heralded the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution. The impact of this has already had a profound effect on healthcare, from its provision, to the exponential basis upon which scientific research has grown and developed. The increase in accessibility has significant ethical and moral implications, which have previously not required analysis and consideration. Study of critical appraisal explores a series of heuristics and biases used to appraise scientific articles including the ‘Publication Bias’. This describes the relationship of a study being published in a scientific journal being frequently associated with a statistically significant result.1 The implications of this have determined the quantity of both the articles published, and the number of times an article is cited by others. The analysis of citations provides an insight into both the influence and reach of a research article, and such an evaluation can demonstrate the key topics of interest within a specialty. Increased awareness of the impact of the information available to the scientific community has led to several new analyses of the most cited articles in a variety of different fields.2-4 Specific to orthopedic surgery, to our knowledge, the authors believe this is the first evaluation of the top 50 articles published pertaining to knee surgery exclusively.

Materials and Methods

In June 2019, the Web of Science Core Collection Database (Clarivate Analytics) was searched. The initial search terms were ‘Knee’ with the Boolean string ‘AND’ and the term ‘Surgery’. This search was then further refined using the ‘Web of Science Category’ Tag of ‘Orthopedics’. Results were then ranked by number of citations, before being evaluated for appropriateness and relevance. Inclusion criteria required explicit relevance to surgical intervention. Articles were reviewed by title and abstract by two of the authors, and in the event of a disagreement, a third author would adjudicate. Each article was assessed for authorship, author institution, country of origin, year of publication and name of journal. Each title and abstract were then tagged by subject area to assess which topics received the most discussion.

Results

A total of 1,660 articles were identified, with the top 50 articles related to surgical intervention included in the results (Table 1).5-54 A total of 11 articles were excluded, having not met with the inclusion criteria. The total number of citations ranged from 1,407 to 274, with the most cited article titled: Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale, published in 1982. However, the most recurring theme within the top 50 most cited knee surgery articles pertained to the outcomes of knee arthroplasty (Figure 1). The articles were then assessed for date of publication, with the highest frequency of citations of the top 50 papers occurring in 2007 (n=15) (Figure 2).

Evaluating the papers based on country of origin demonstrated that the United States of America had n=22 of the 50 most cited articles in knee surgery (Figure 3). Furthermore, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery had n=16 out of the top 50 most cited articles in knee surgery (Table 2). Figure 4 illustrates the top 50 most cited articles in knee surgery by journal.

Discussion

Research forms the basis upon which advances in medicine and surgery are proposed, evaluated, and disseminated. However, within surgery, research has often attracted criticism for both the difficulties in reproducibility, lack of methodological robustness, and logistical difficulties in organizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). More attempts have been made to improve both the quality and the quantity of research, and this is evidenced by the development of frameworks such as CONSORT and IDEAL to help standardize the approach to research within surgery.55 As a result, the increased quantity of surgical research specifically within orthopedics has led to a proliferation of publications within the field, with 27 of the 50 most cited articles published within the last 10 years of the database.

Further work could evaluate, with greater granularity, the themes within knee surgery over time to provide a dynamic overview of research themes. Given the advances in knee surgery, it may reflect the contemporaneity of these techniques, that these themes fall considerably behind the leading theme of ‘Knee Arthoplasty’, and a dynamic overview could elucidate such trends.

In line with the work of other authors, 48 of the 50 most cited articles were published in American based journals despite only 22 of the articles being written by authors at American-based institutions (Table 2).56 This could reflect the influence that journals based in the United States have with regards to the publication and growth of impactful papers in orthopedic surgery.

Out of the nine journals represented by the top 50 most cited papers, seven of them had impact factors above the 2016 mean of 1.9.57 Given that impact factor is derived from the number of citations received, this suggests that the selection of papers is in keeping with articles that are considered both relevant and important within orthopedic surgery, and may have been accepted with a view to directly improving their respective journal’s overall standing.

Conclusions

This paper provides an insight into key and impactful trends within knee surgery, and at the time of writing, is the only paper to exclusively explore the 50 most cited articles in knee surgery. Whilst this form of analysis provides a unique insight into trends and key themes in knee surgery, there are further variables that should be explored to gain a fuller and richer appreciation of the role of journals influencing advances within the field. The trends not only identify popular areas within the specialty, but also the relative paucity of cited publications within the field, and this information can be leveraged to direct future research efforts. Furthermore, the overview of research being conducted within the area of orthopedic knee surgery should serve to promote more informed scientific discourse between researchers, facilitating more focused exploration of research areas within the field.

Table 1.

The top 50 articles related to surgical intervention, with the relative number of citations.

Rank Paper (ref) Citations Rank Paper (ref) Citations
#1 Lysholm 1982(5) 1407 #26 Lingard 2004(30) 352
#2 Lohmander 2007(6) 996 #27 Marder 1991(31) 348
#3 Ethgen, 2004(7) 885 #28 Peterson 2010(32) 345
#4 Daniel 1994(8) 807 #29 Pinczewski 2007(33) 342
#5 Knutsen 2004(9) 805 #30 Gudas 2005(34) 336
#6 Sharkey 2002(10) 716 #31 Yasuda 2006(35) 334
#7 Steadman 2003(11) 708 #32 Obrien 1991(36) 333
#8 Bourne 2010(12) 656 #33 Corry 1999(37) 322
#9 Bierbaum 1999(13) 587 #34 Fehring 2001(38) 321
#10 Steadman 2001(14) 573 #35 Brander 2003(39) 319
#11 Hangody 2003(15) 571 #36 Kurtz 2014(40) 314
#12 Jeffery 1991(16) 567 #37 Chauhan 2004(41) 313
#13 Knutsen 2007(17) 552 #38 Hangody 1998(42) 312
#14 Pulido 2008(18) 539 #39 Diduch 1997(43) 306
#15 Kurtz 2009(19) 508 #40 Scott 2010(44) 303
#16 Hjelle 2002(20) 455 #41 Ranawat 1993(45) 297
#17 Noble 2006(21) 442 #42 Widuchowski 2007(46) 294
#18 Ginsberg 2008(22) 429 #43 Nejadnik 2010(47) 292
#19 Hawker 1998(23) 427 #44 Kerr 2008(48) 291
#20 Peersman 2001(24) 425 #45 Fulkerson 2002(49) 288
#21 Glasson 2007(25) 405 #46 Shelbourne 1991(50) 283
#22 Freedman 2003(26) 400 #47 Yagi 2007(51) 280
#23 Bathis 2004(27) 374 #48 Muneta 2007(52) 278
#24 Baker 2007(28) 370 #49 Harris 2001(53) 275
#25 Kreuz 2006(29) 354 #50 Phillips 2006(54) 274
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Graph of research themes.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Graph of frequency of publications by year.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Graph of volume of publications by Country.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Graph of number of publications from top 50 most cited by journal.

Table 2.

The top 50 articles distribution by journal.

Journal name IF No. of papers in top 50
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 4.84 16
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 4.09 12
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 6.06 11
Arthroscopy 4.29 5
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 5.45 2
Acta Orthopaedica 3.22 1
Orthopedics 1.61 1
The Journal of Arthroplasty 3.52 1
The Knee 1.76 1
Open in a new tab

Whilst scientists and researchers are often mindful of the intrinsic biases and heuristics, further analysis into paper selection and the motivating factors which underpin these decisions could potentially develop a new approach to finding articles, which can limit the impact of these heuristics. Such a framework may require a review of the most recently published articles in addition to the most cited articles to enable a balanced and informed research approach. Whilst some journals may implicitly seek out recent references, embedding this within a framework could redefine the approach to literature review.

Funding Statement

Funding: None.

References

  • 1.Lin L, Chu H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2018;74:785–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen XL, Chen ZR, Cao ZL, et al. The 100 most cited articles in ectopic pregnancy: a bibliometric analysis. Springerplus 2016;5:1815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schargus M, Kromer R, Druchkiv V, Frings A. The top 100 papers in dry eye - A bibliometric analysis. Ocul Surf 2018;16:180-90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Uysal E. Top 100 cited classic articles in breast cancer research. Eur J Breast Health 2017;13:129-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of Knee Ligament Surgery Results with Special Emphasis on Use Of A Scoring Scale. Am J Sports Med 1982;10:150-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1756-69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, et al. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86: 963-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Daniel DM, Stone ML, Dobson BE, et al. Fate of the ACL-injured patient. A prospective outcome study. Am J Sports Med 1994;22:632-44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC, et al. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Compared With Microfracture In The knee. A Randomized Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:455-64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002:7-13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Rodrigo JJ, et al. Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2003;19:477-84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468: 57-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bierbaum BE, Callaghan JJ, Galante JO, et al. An analysis of blood management in patients having a total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:2-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Steadman JR, Rodkey WG, Rodrigo JJ. Microfracture: surgical technique and rehabilitation to treat chondral defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001:S362-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hangody L, Füles P. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty for the treatment of full-thickness defects of weight-bearing joints: ten years of experimental and clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85A:25-32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal Alignment After Total Knee Replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:709-14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, et al. A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89: 2105-12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, et al. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1710-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:2606-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hjelle K, Solheim E, Strand T, et al. Articular cartilage defects in 1,000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 2002;18: 730-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;452:35-43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ginsberg JS, Davidson BL, Comp PC, et al. Oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate vs North American enoxaparin regimen for prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 2009;24: 1-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, et al. Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:163-73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M. Infection in total knee replacement: a retrospective review of 6489 total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001:15-23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Glasson SS, Blanchet TJ, Morris EA. The surgical destabilization of the medial meniscus (DMM) model of osteoarthritis in the 129/SvEv mouse. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15:1061-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Freedman KB, D'Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, et al. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med 2003;31:2-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, et al. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:682-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, et al. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89: 893-900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kreuz PC, Steinwachs MR, Erggelet C, et al. Results after microfracture of fullthickness chondral defects in different compartments in the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14:1119-25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, et al. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:2179-86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Marder RA, Raskind JR, Carroll M. Prospective evaluation of arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendons. Am J Sports Med 1991;19:478-84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Peterson L, Vasiliadis HS, Brittberg M, Lindahl A. Autologous chondrocyte implantation: a long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:1117-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, et al. A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:564-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gudas R, Kalesinskas RJ, Kimtys V, et al. A prospective randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint in young athletes. Arthroscopy 2005;21:1066-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, et al. Clinical evaluation of anatomic doublebundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy 2006;22:240-51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.O'Brien SJ, Warren RF, Pavlov H, et al. Reconstruction of the chronically insufficient anterior cruciate ligament with the central third of the patellar ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:278-86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Corry IS, Webb JM, Clingeleffer AJ, Pinczewski LA. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and four-strand hamstring tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27:444-54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, et al. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001:315-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Brander VA, Stulberg SD, Adams AD, et al. Predicting total knee replacement pain: a prospective, observational study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003:27-36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96: 624-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jigbased technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:372-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hangody L, Kish G, Kárpáti Z, et al. Mosaicplasty for the treatment of articular cartilage defects: application in clinical practice. Orthopedics 1998;21: 751-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, et al. Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:575-82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1253-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ranawat CS, Flynn WF, Saddler S, et al. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993:94-102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Widuchowski W, Widuchowski J, Trzaska T. Articular cartilage defects: study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies. Knee 2007;14:177-82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nejadnik H, Hui JH, Feng Choong EP, et al. Autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells versus autologous chondrocyte implantation: an observational cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:1110-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kerr DR, Kohan L. Local infiltration analgesia: a technique for the control of acute postoperative pain following knee and hip surgery: a case study of 325 patients. Acta Orthop 2008;79:174-83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fulkerson JP. Diagnosis And Treatment Of Patients With Patellofemoral Pain. Am J Sports Med 2002;30:447-56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Shelbourne KD, Wilckens JH, Mollabashy A, DeCarlo M. Arthrofibrosis in acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The effect of timing of reconstruction and rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 1991;19:332-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Yagi M, Kuroda R, Nagamune K, et al. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction can improve rotational stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;454:100-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Muneta T, Koga H, Mochizuki T, et al. A prospective randomized study of 4- strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy 2007;23:618-28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the problem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001:66-70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Phillips JE, Crane TP, Noy M, Elliott TS, Grimer RJ. The incidence of deep prosthetic infections in a specialist orthopaedic hospital: a 15-year prospective survey. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:943-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.McCulloch P, Feinberg J, Philippou Y, et al. Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL. Lancet 2018;392: 88-94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Piolanti N, Poggetti A, Nucci AM, et al. The 50 most cited articles about wrist surgery. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2018;10: 7715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mohamed NS, Gwam CU, Etcheson JI, et al. Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2010 and 2016: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. Ann Transl Med 2018;6:114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Orthopedic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

RESOURCES