Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2015
The Mark Coventry Award: Trabecular metal tibial components were durable and reliable in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and refinement of thresholds for early migration of total knee replacements as an estimator of late aseptic loosening: an updated systematic review of RSA and survival studies.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Pooled it
- Tantalum Cementless Versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Level 1 Studies.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Trabecular metal monoblock versus modular tibial trays in total knee arthroplasty: meta-analysis of randomized control trials.International orthopaedics · 2022Pooled it
- John N. Insall Award: Randomized Clinical Trial of Cementless Versus Cemented Tibial Components: Durable and Reliable at a Mean 10-Years Follow-Up.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2023Trial
- Uncemented or cemented femoral components work equally well in total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019Trial
- Trabecular metal tibial knee component still stable at 10 years.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Trial
- [Effectiveness of cementless total knee arthroplasty with three-dimensional-printed trabecular metal interface].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Thirty-year outcomes of cemented versus cementless posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Two-Peg Cementless Trabecular Metal Modular Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Single-Center Comparative Study with Cemented Counterparts.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Fixation in total knee arthroplasty: are cemented implants still mandatory in younger and obese patients?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Review
- Mid-term radiographic evaluation of a monoblock trabecular metal tibia following total knee arthroplasty in obese and morbidly obese patients.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Fixation options for total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive literature review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Review
- Article
- New Horizons of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.Acta orthopaedica · 2023Article
- Article
- The Evolution, Current Indications and Outcomes of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Highlighting the advantages and benefits of cementless total knee arthroplasty (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Catastrophic tibial baseplate failure of a modern cementless total knee arthroplasty implant.Arthroplasty today · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough highly porous metals have demonstrated excellent bone ingrowth properties and so are an intriguing option for fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), some surgeons are skeptical about the durability of uncemented tibial fixation and the potential for soft tissues to adhere to these porous metals and perhaps cause knee stiffness or pain. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to compare, in the context of a randomized clinical trial, a highly porous metal tibia compared with a traditional modular cemented tibia in terms of survivorship, Knee Society scores, range of motion (ROM), and complications.
methodsFrom 2003 to 2006, 397 patients (age 67.8 ± 8.7 years; 54% female) were randomized to three groups: (1) traditional modular cemented tibia; (2) cemented highly porous metal tibia; and (3) uncemented highly porous metal tibia. The same posterior-stabilized femoral component and patella component were cemented in every case. Stratified randomization was done for surgeon, patient's age, sex, and body mass index. Survivorship at 5 years was compared between the groups, as were Knee Society scores, ROM, and complications. Radiographic assessment included alignment, radiolucency, and implant migration/loosening. Patients were followed until death, revision, or for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 5 years; range, 2-9 years). Four patients were lost to followup before 2 years.
resultsHighly porous metal tibias (both uncemented and cemented) were no different from traditional cemented modular tibial modular components in terms of survivorship at 5 years using a intention-to-treat analysis (96.8% [1]; 97.6% [2]; 96.7% [3]; p = 0.59). A per-protocol analysis revealed that no highly porous metal tibia was revised for aseptic loosening. Highly porous metal tibias performed comparably to traditional cemented modular tibias in terms of Knee Society scores, ROM, and the frequency of complications.
conclusionsAt 5 years this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that highly porous metal tibias provided comparably durable fixation and reliable pain relief and restoration of function when compared with a traditional cemented modular tibia in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.