Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33312706›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2020

Cemented vs. cementless fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anoop K Prasad, Jaimee H S Tan, Hany S Bedair, Sebastian Dawson-Bowling, Sammy A Hanna

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The presence of a positive blood culture should be regarded a risk factor for DAIR failure in cases of haematogenous total knee arthroplasty infection.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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
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.

Anoop K PrasadDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Jaimee H S TanBarts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7716-9988
Hany S BedairDepartment of Orthopaedics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sebastian Dawson-BowlingDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Sammy A HannaDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7381-701X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over 100,000 total knee replacements (TKRs) are carried out in the UK annually, with cemented fixation accounting for approximately 95% of all primary TKRs. In Australia, 68.1% of all primary TKRs use cemented fixation, and only 10.9% use cementless fixation. However, there has been a renewed interest in cementless fixation as a result of improvements in implant design and manufacturing technology.This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of cemented and cementless fixation in primary TKR. Outcome measures included the revision rate and patient-reported functional scores.MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from the earliest available date to November 2018 for randomized controlled trials of primary TKAs comparing cemented versus cementless fixation outcomes.Six studies met our inclusion criteria and were analysed. A total of 755 knees were included; 356 knees underwent cemented fixation, 399 underwent cementless fixation. They were followed up for an average of 8.4 years (range: 2.0 to 16.6).This study found no significant difference in revision rates and knee function in cemented versus cementless TKR at up to 16.6-year follow-up. Cite this article:

Indexed as

cementedcementlesstotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID33312706
PMCPMC7722941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.