ArticleActa orthopaedica2013
Monoblock all-polyethylene tibial components have a lower risk of early revision than metal-backed modular components.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2023Pooled it
- All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017Pooled it
- Biomechanical and clinical evaluation of 3D-printed integrated tibial prosthesis for reconstructing AORI type Ⅲ tibial plateau defects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Metal-backed versus all-poly tibia in the original cartier unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcomes and survivorship at long-term follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Implant Preference and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Staged Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: All-Polyethylene and Contralateral Metal-Backed Tibial Components.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes and survival comparison between NexGen all-poly and its metal-backed equivalent in total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Late stabilization after initial migration in patients undergoing cemented total knee arthroplasty: a 5-year followup of 2 randomized controlled trials using radiostereometric analysis.Acta orthopaedica · 2022Article
- Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: all-poly versus metal-backed tibial component-a long-term follow-up study.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Peripheral snap-fit locking mechanisms and smooth surface finish of tibial trays reduce backside wear in fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 2017Article
- Limb-salvage treatment of en-block resected distal femoral tumors with endoprosthesis of all-polyethylene tibial component: a 9-year follow-up study.OncoTargets and therapy · 2016Article
- All-polyethylene tibial components are not inferior to metal-backed tibial components in long-term follow-up of knee arthroplasties.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeWith younger patients seeking reconstructions and the activity-based demands placed on the arthroplasty construct, consideration of the role that implant characteristics play in arthroplasty longevity is warranted. We therefore evaluated the risk of early revision for a monoblock all-polyethylene tibial component compared to a metal-backed modular tibial construct with the same articular geometry in a sample of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). We evaluated risk of revision in younger patients (< 65 years old) and in older patients (≥ 65 years old).
methodFixed primary TKAs with implants from a single manufacturer, performed between April 2001 and December 2010, were analyzed retrospectively. Patient characteristics, surgeon, hospital, procedure, and implant characteristics were compared according to tibial component type (monoblock all-polyethylene vs. metal-backed modular). All-cause revisions and aseptic revisions were evaluated. We used descriptive statistics and Cox regression models.
results27,657 TKAs were identified, 2,306 (8%) with monoblock and 25,351 (92%) with modular components. In adjusted models, the risk of early all-cause revision (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-0.8) and aseptic revision (HR = 0.6, CI: 0.3-1.2) was lower for the monoblock cohort than for the modular cohort. In older patients, the early risk of all-cause revision was 0.6 (CI: 0.4-1.0) for the monoblock cohort compared to the modular cohort. In younger patients, the adjusted risk of all-cause revision (HR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.7) and of aseptic revision (HR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.7) were lower for the monoblock cohort than for the modular cohort.
interpretationOverall, monoblock tibial constructs had a 49% lower early risk of all-cause revision and a 41% lower risk of aseptic revision than modular constructs. In younger patients with monoblock components, the early risk of revision for any cause was even lower.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.