ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Pulsed lavage is associated with better quality of bone-cement-implant interface in knee arthroplasties (TKA/UKA) compared to syringe lavage in vitro; however, clinical data are missing: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cement compression device for cemented total knee arthroplasty : a randomized controlled trial.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Radiolucent lines after robotic-assisted surface-matching kinematically aligned UKA: short-term incidence and lack of association with tibial alignment.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Novel Visual Grade and Hounsfield Unit Predict Adequate Bone Strength for Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Pulsed lavage is associated with better quality of bone-cement-implant interface in knee arthroplasties (TKA/UKA) compared to syringe lavage in vitro; however, clinical data are missing: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to analyse the available literature to ascertain the optimal method of bone preparation to improve the quality of bone-cement-implant interface with either pulsed lavage or syringe lavage in both total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2023. Both inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and used to identify all the published studies. Subsequent screening throughout the title, abstract and full text was made, followed by complete critical appraisal and data extraction. This sequential process was performed by two reviewers independently and summarised following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines). A quality assessment of the systematic review was performed according to the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale (QUACS), reaching a quality level ranging from 69% to 85%. Results: A total of 10 articles, out of 47, nine biomechanical cadaveric studies and one human clinical study were analysed. A total of 196 UKA tibial components, 74 patellar components, 36 TKA tibial components and 24 UKA femoral components were retrieved, and a high level of heterogeneity resulted overall. The pulsed lavage group showed better cement penetration and higher pull-out force than the syringe lavage group; a higher interface temperature was also found in the pulsed lavage group. No differences were found regarding tension ligament forces between the groups. Conclusion: Our systematic review suggests that pulsed lavage is superior to syringe lavage in terms of the quality of bone-cement-implant interface in knee arthroplasties (TKA/UKA). However, translation of these results from cadaveric studies to individual clinical settings may be hazardous; therefore, clinical in vivo prospective studies are highly needed. PROSPERO CRD: PROSPERO CRD number CRD42023432399. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.