Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21657975›Full record

SynthesisActa orthopaedica2011

Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating appears to be of benefit for implant durability of tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty.

Jeffrey D Voigt, Michael Mosier

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Similar survival between screw cementless and cemented tibial components in young patients with osteoarthritis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2014
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fixation in total knee arthroplasty: are cemented implants still mandatory in younger and obese patients?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. New Horizons of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Treatment of osteochondral defects: chondrointegration of metal implants improves after hydroxyapatite coating.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cementless total knee arthroplasty.Annals of translational medicine · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jeffrey D VoigtWashburn University, Topeka, KS , USA. meddevconsultant@aol.com
Michael Mosier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear whether there is a clinical benefit to adding hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings to total knee implants, especially with the tibial component, where failure of the implant more often occurs. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all prospective randomized trials for determining whether the overall clinical results (as a function of durability, function, and adverse events) favored HA-coated tibial components.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed for the years 1990 to September 16, 2010. We restricted our search to randomized controlled trials involving participants receiving either an HA-coated tibia or other forms of tibial fixation. The primary outcome measures evaluated were durability, function, and acute adverse events.

resultsData from 926 evaluable primary total knee implants in 14 studies were analyzed. Using an RSA definition for durability, HA-coated tibial components (porous or press-fit) without screw fixation were less likely to be unstable at 2 years than porous and cemented metal-backed tibial components (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.98; p = 0.04, I(2) = 39%, M-H random effects model). There was no significant difference in durability, as measured from revision and evaluated at 2 and 8-10 years, between groups. Also, functional status using different validated measures showed no significant difference at 2 and 5 years, no matter what measure was used. Lastly, there was no significant difference in adverse events. Limitations included small numbers of evaluable patients (≤ 50) in 7 of the 14 trials identified, and a lack of "hard" evidence of durability with need for replacement (i.e. frank failure, pain, or loss of functionality).

interpretationIn patients > 65 years of age, an HA-coated tibial implant may provide better durability than other forms of tibial fixation. Larger trials should be undertaken comparing the long-term durability, function, and adverse events of HA-coated implants with those of other porous-coated tibial implants in younger, more active OA patients.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDurapatiteHumansKnee ProsthesisOutcome Assessment, Health CareProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDurapatite

Identifiers

PMID21657975
PMCPMC3237036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.