Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22972656›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2012

All-polyethylene tibial components are equal to metal-backed components: systematic review and meta-regression.

Klaas Auke Nouta, Wiebe C Verra, Bart G Pijls, Jan W Schoones, Rob G H H Nelissen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03569670 (All-Polyethylene Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

NCT03569670 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

All-Polyethylene Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Radiostereometric Analysis Comparing Posterior Stabilizing and Condylar Stabilizing Implants

TypeinterventionalSponsorLondon Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sRan2020 to 2022Enrolled0ConditionsOsteoarthritis, KneeArmsPosterior stabilized all-polyethylene tibial component, Cruciate retaining all-polyethylene tibial component
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Klaas Auke NoutaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Postal Code J11R, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. K.A.Nouta@lumc.nl
Wiebe C Verra
Bart G Pijls
Jan W Schoones
Rob G H H Nelissen
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLess than 1% of all primary TKAs are performed with an all-polyethylene tibial component, although recent studies indicate all-polyethylene tibial components are equal to or better than metal-backed ones. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether the metal-backed tibial component was clinically superior to the all-polyethylene tibial component in primary TKAs regarding revision rates and clinical functioning, and which modifying variables affected the revision rate.

methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature for clinical studies comparing all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components used in primary TKAs in terms of revision rates, clinical scores, and radiologic parameters including radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1557 unique references of which 26 articles were included, comprising more than 12,500 TKAs with 231 revisions for any reason.

resultsMeta-analysis showed no differences between the all-polyethylene and metal-backed components except for higher migration of the metal-backed components. Meta-regression showed strong evidence that the all-polyethylene design has improved with time compared with the metal-backed design.

conclusionsThe all-polyethylene components were equivalent to metal-backed components regarding revision rates and clinical scores. The all-polyethylene components had better fixation (RSA) than the metal-backed components. The belief that metal-backed components are better than all-polyethylene ones seems to be based on studies from earlier TKAs. This might no longer be true for modern TKAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisMetalsPolyethyleneAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleForeign-Body MigrationHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRecovery of FunctionReoperationMetalsPolyethylene

Identifiers

PMID22972656
PMCPMC3492632
OpenAlexW2002804612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.