• 
  
• radioskTeometric analysis study of the AUT ,olnl  knee prosthesis, .1 Arthropkisly. 15. 2000; 783-792.
• 55-Clonticr JM, Snbouret P, BegKrar A~ef aK : Total knee arthroplasty
• with   retention  of both -cruciate ligaments.  A  nine to  eleven-year follow-up study. JBJS, 8:1 A, 1999; 697-702.
• 56-I!ofmann A A, Tkach TK, Evanich GJ et aS. : Posterior stabilization in total knee replacement with use of an uUraeongruent polyethylene insert. J arthroplasty; 15, 2000; 576-583.
• 57-TirveiHiot  HMF : Preservation, resection or substitution of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement. European instructional course lectures, Volume 6, 2003: 176-184.
• 58-Tanzer M, Smith K, Burnett S : Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-——retaining totat-knee-arthroplasty: balancing the"gaprJ^fthToplasty; 17,
• 2002; 813-819.
• 59-Misra AN, Hussain MRA, Fiddian NJ et a!. : The role of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement. JBJS, 85B, 2003; 389-392.
• 60-Watanabe H, Akizuki S, Takizawa T  :  Survival analysis of a
• cementless cruciate retaining total knee arthropla.sty. JBJS, 86B, 2004;
• 824-829.
• 61-Mccaskie   AW, Deehan l)J, . (.irccn TF c£ al. : Randomised, prospective study comparing cemented and cementless total knee replacement. Results of press-fit condylar total knee replacement at five years. JBJS, SOB, 1998; ^l>71-975.
• 62-Uonstcn, Ingemar, Nordqvist: Ilydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial components. JBJS, SOB, 1998; 417-425.
•