Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Consequences of using poly-ether-ether-ketone versus traditional implant on tibial cement penetration and short-term clinical outcomes during total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in arthroplasty and orthopaedics: a review of biomechanical properties, surface modifications, and clinical outcomes.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) prosthesis during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a relatively new concept. Several studies have suggested that the thickness of cement penetration during TKA may affect the stability of the implants. The present study aimed to compare the cement penetration and clinical performance between PEEK and traditional cobalt chromium molybdenum (CoCrMo) prosthesis during TKA.
methodsThis study was a randomized controlled trial with level I of evidence. A total of 48 patients were randomly assigned to either the PEEK group (n = 24) or the CoCrMo group (n = 24). Mean bone cement penetration under the tibial baseplate was assessed radiographically in four zones in the anteroposterior view and two zones in the lateral view, in accordance with the Knee Society Scoring System. Furthermore, parameters such as the Knee Society Score (KSS), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, complications and survivorship at 1 year postoperatively were also compared.
resultsAccording to the results of this study, the mean bone cement penetration exhibited no significant difference between PEEK and CoCrMo groups (2.49 ± 0.61 mm vs. 2.53 ± 0.68 mm, p = 0.85). Additionally, there were no remarkable differences in the KSS clinical score, functional score, and VAS score between the two groups. Moreover, complications and survivorship were also statistically compared between the groups and presented no significant differences.
conclusionsBased on the current findings, it can be concluded that PEEK implant present similar bone cement penetration, short-term clinical outcomes, and survivorship with traditional CoCrMo implant in TKA without added complications. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100047563).
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.