Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31274720›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume2019

Cemented Versus Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty of the Same Modern Design: A Prospective, Randomized Trial.

Denis Nam, Charles M Lawrie, Rondek Salih, Cindy R Nahhas, Robert L Barrack, Ryan M Nunley

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT04597684 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

What Are the Results of Cemented vs. Cementless TKA With the Same Implant Design? A Randomized Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorOrthoCarolina Research Institute, Inc.Ran2020 to 2021Enrolled17ConditionsTotal Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)ArmsCementless Total Knee Arthroplasty, Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT05877261 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

5 Year Follow-Up of Migration of a Cementless Total Knee Replacement

TypeobservationalSponsorLondon Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sRan2023 to 2024Enrolled18ConditionsKnee Arthroplasty, Total, Knee Osteoarthritis, Radiostereometric AnalysisArmsCementless Total Knee Replacement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. [Research progress of cementless prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Denis NamDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Charles M LawrieDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.
Rondek SalihDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.
Cindy R NahhasDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Robert L BarrackDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.
Ryan M NunleyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHighly porous surfaces promoting biologic fixation have renewed interest in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but the potential for failed biologic fixation remains. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of cemented and cementless versions of the same TKA design at an average of 2 years postoperatively.

methodsThis was an institutional review board-approved, prospective, randomized controlled trial of patients from 18 to 75 years of age who were undergoing a primary TKA. Patients with inflammatory arthritis, a body mass index (BMI) of >40 kg/m, infection, a neuromuscular disorder, or grossly osteoporotic bone or bone defects were excluded. Patients were randomized to receive a cemented or cementless cruciate-retaining TKA of the same design. The cementless implant has highly porous fixation surfaces. Oxford Knee, Knee Society, and Forgotten Joint Scores were collected. Patients were asked to rate the knee with the TKA as a percentage of normal. Power analysis indicated that 130 patients were necessary to demonstrate a 5-point difference in the Oxford Knee Score at 90% power.

resultsOne hundred and forty-seven patients were enrolled, and 141 (96%) of them were analyzed at an average of 2 years postoperatively. There was no difference in age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, or duration of follow-up (p = 0.1 to 0.9). There was also no difference in the change in the hemoglobin level from the preoperative measurement to postoperative day 1 between the 2 cohorts (mean and standard deviation, -2.6 ± 1.4 g/dL compared with -2.5 ± 0.9 g/dL, p = 0.5), but the total operative time was decreased in the cementless cohort (82.1 ± 16.6 compared with 93.7 ± 16.7 minutes, p = 0.001). There were no differences in any clinical outcome measure at 4 to 6 weeks, 1 year, or an average of 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.1 to 0.9) between the cemented and cementless cohorts. There was no radiographic evidence of component subsidence or loosening in either cohort.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that a recently introduced cementless TKA had results, both perioperatively and at an average of 2 years postoperatively, that were equivalent to those of its cemented predecessor, without any aseptic failures of either implant. Thus, this study justifies continued surveillance of this device to elucidate both its survivorship and if it can provide any long-term benefits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisAdolescentAdultAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBone CementsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPorosityProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignSurface PropertiesBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID31274720
PMCPMC6641115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.