Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36732308›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2022

Medial Pivot Designs Versus Conventional Bearing Types in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Wayne Hoskins, Guy Smith, Tim Spelman, Kelly G Vince

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Wayne HoskinsFrom the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia (Dr. Hoskins); Traumaplasty Melbourne, East Melbourne, Australia (Dr. Hoskins); the Department of Orthopaedics, Northland District Health Board, Whangarei, New Zealand (Dr. Hoskins, Smith, and Dr. Vince); and Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (Dr. Spelman).ORCID 0000-0003-0608-3065
Guy Smith
Tim Spelman
Kelly G Vince
Spelman College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedial pivot (MP) designs are growing in popularity. They provide increased sagittal plane stability and theoretically replicate some aspects of native joint kinematics, which may improve total knee arthroplasty outcomes.

methodsA systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared MP designs with cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized (PS), ultracongruent, or mobile-bearings in primary total knee arthroplasty, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome measures were all clinical function scores, patient-reported outcome measures, and range of motion. The secondary outcome was complications. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Studies at high risk of bias were excluded from meta-analysis. Treatment effects were assessed using random-effects meta-analysis and quantified using pooled mean differences or incidence rate differences as appropriate.

resultsEight RCTs met inclusion criteria. Five compared MP with PS, two with ultracongruent, and one with cruciate-retaining and mobile-bearing. In total, 350 knees were randomized to MP and 375 to conventional bearings. One RCT was excluded from meta-analysis because of high risk of bias. Meta-analysis comparing MP with PS only was possible and found no differences at any time points for any outcome measure, including 2-year follow-up for Oxford Knee Score (MD = 0.35 favoring PS; 95% CI -0.49 to 1.20) and range of motion (MD = 1.58 favoring MP; 95% CI -0.76 to 11.92, P = 0.30) and 12 months for Western Ontario Arthritis Index (MD = 4.42 favoring MP; 95% CI -12.04 to 3.20, P = 0.09).

conclusionsThere is no difference in clinical outcomes, with contemporary measurement tools, at any time points, between MP and PS. There are insufficient RCTs comparing MP with other bearings.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeHumansKnee JointRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRange of Motion, Articular

Identifiers

PMID36732308
PMCPMC9726426
OpenAlexW4318965163

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.