1. 
   
2. 46-Ranawa( AS, Rossi R, Lord; I et :il. : Comparison of (he PFC Sigm.j fixed-bearing and roiating-platfonvi tolal knee arthropiasty in the same Patient. J Arihroulusiv, 19, 2004; 35-39,
   47-SoiTcIls   RB, Voorhorst PE, Murrhy JA ct al. : Uncemenled rotating platform total knee replacement: A five to twelve-year follow-up study. JBJS, 86A, 2004; 2156-2162.
   48-Kim  YII, Kim JS : Comparison of anterior-posterior-glide and rotati rig-platform low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. JBJS, 86A, 2004; 1239-1247.
   49-Shmidt R, Komistek RD, Blaha JD et al. : Fluroscopic analysis of cruciate-retaining and medial pivot knee implants. Clin orthop, 410, — -2-003; 139-147,
   50-Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ, and DiCesare PE: Alternative bearing surfaces for total joint arthropiasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 6, 1998; 198-203.
   51-Norgren B, Dalen T, Nilsson KG : All-poly tibial component better than metal-backed: a randomized RSA study. The Knee ! 1, 2004; 189-196.
   52-Parks NL, Engh GA, Topoleski LD et »': Modular tibial insert micro-motion: a concern with contemporary knee implants. Clin Orthop, 356; 1998, 10-15.
   53-Conditt MA, Thompson MT, Usrey MM et al.,: Backside wear of
   polyethylene tibial inserts: Mechanism and magnitude of material loss.
   JBJS, 87A, 2005; 326-331.                   - '
   54-AdaIberth G, Nilsson KG, Bystrom S et al. : Low-conforming all-polyethylene tibial component not inferior to metal-backed component in cemented total knee arthropiasty. Prospective, randomized