Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33673850›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021

A comprehensive comparison between cementless and cemented fixation in the total knee arthroplasty: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yuan Liu, Yi Zeng, Yuangang Wu, Mingyang Li, Huiqi Xie, Bin Shen

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

6 authors.

Yuan LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, 37# Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, People's Republic of China.
Yi ZengDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, 37# Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, People's Republic of China.
Yuangang WuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, 37# Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, People's Republic of China.
Mingyang LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, 37# Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, People's Republic of China.
Huiqi XieDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, 37# Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, People's Republic of China.
Bin ShenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, 37# Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, People's Republic of China. shenbin_1971@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1756-6647

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether the cement should be used in the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was still in controversy. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of two kinds of fixation.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective/retrospective observational studies from PubMed (on 2019 September), EMBASE (on 2019 September), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science (on 2019 September) were searched. Only studies followed more than 2 years was included for the review. The PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook were adopted to assess the quality of the results reported in included studies to ensure that the results of our meta-analysis were reliable and veritable. The continuous and dichotomous outcomes were collected in a standard form, and the data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Finally, the results were presented in the Forest plots.

resultsTwenty-six studies involving 2369 patients in cementless TKA and 2654 patients in cemented TKA were included. The rate of revision was not significantly different in two groups (p = 0.55). More than eight reasons caused revision were found in our study, the aseptic loosing was the most common, followed by the periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), neither was significantly different (p = 0.88 and 0.45, respectively). While significantly better long-term functional recovery was found in cementless TKA in terms of Knee Society Function Score (p = 0.004) and manipulation under anesthesia (p = 0.007).

conclusionCementless fixation did not decrease the rate of revision after the total knee arthroplasty compared with the cemented fixation, while the long-term functional recovery was significantly better in the cementless group.

Indexed as

Bone CementsArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansProsthesis FailureReoperationTreatment OutcomeBone CementsCementCementlessMeta-analysisSystematical reviewTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID33673850
PMCPMC7934367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.