Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39776207›Full record

SynthesisActa orthopaedica2025

Evaluation and refinement of thresholds for early migration of total knee replacements as an estimator of late aseptic loosening: an updated systematic review of RSA and survival studies.

Raymond Puijk, Jiwanjot Singh, Rowan H Puijk, Elise K Laende, José W M Plevier, Peter A Nolte, Bart G C W Pijls

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Precision, Accuracy, and Observer Reliability of Computed Tomography-Based Radiostereometric Analysis in Measuring Femoral Stem Migration In Vitro.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026
    Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Raymond PuijkDepartment of Orthopaedics, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands. Rpuijk@spaarnegasthuis.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0953-0070
Jiwanjot SinghDepartment of Orthopaedics, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands.
Rowan H PuijkDepartment of Orthopaedics, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands.
Elise K LaendeMechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University and QEII Health Sciences Centre, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9889-7570
José W M PlevierWalaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Peter A NolteDepartment of Orthopaedics, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp; Department of Oral Cell Biology, Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bart G C W PijlsDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5351-5057

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThis study updates 2 parallel systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2012, which established the 1-year radiostereometric (RSA) migration thresholds for tibial components of total knee replacements (TKR) based on the risk of late revision for aseptic loosening from survival studies. The primary aim of this study was to determine the (mis)categorization rate of the 2012 thresholds using the updated review as a validation dataset. Secondary aims were evaluation of 6-month migration, mean continuous (1- to 2-year) migration, and fixation-specific thresholds for tibial component migration.

methodsOne review comprised early migration data, measured by maximum total point motion (MTPM), from RSA studies, while the other focused on revision rates for aseptic loosening of tibial components from survival studies. Studies were matched based on prosthesis, fixation (i.e., cemented and uncemented, and uncemented with screw fixation), and insert (PFI). For the primary aim, newly included study group combinations were compared with the 2012 RSA thresholds to determine the (mis)categorization rate. For the secondary aims, new thresholds were determined based on revision rates for any reason in national registries (5-year < 3%, 10-year < 5%, 15-year < 6.5%).

resultsAfter matching studies on PFI, a total of 157 survival and 82 RSA studies were included, comprising 504 study group combinations, 51 different PFIs, and 186,974 TKRs. We found that the 2012 thresholds were valid, with a misclassification rate of 0.5% at 5 and 0.3% at 10 years. Mean continuous migration could not be used to identify safe or unsafe implants. For cemented TKR, the 6-month mean MTPM was acceptable below 0.30 mm and unacceptable above 1.10 mm. For uncemented TKR, it was acceptable below 1.10 mm and unacceptable above 1.55 mm.

conclusionThe updated data reaffirm the 2012 RSA thresholds, confirming their validity in estimating revision risks for tibial component aseptic loosening. The newly proposed fixation-specific 6-month migration thresholds were found to be reliable for early identification of unsafe TKR designs, while 1- to 2-year mean continuous migration data were found not to be reliable for this purpose. These findings support and refine the migration thresholds to improve the evidence-based introduction of new TKR systems.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis FailureRadiostereometric AnalysisReoperationForeign-Body MigrationHumans

Identifiers

PMID39776207
PMCPMC11706017

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.