ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Stem fixation techniques in revision total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stem fixation techniques in revision total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) using uncemented press-fit stems (hybrid fixation) versus cemented stems (cemented fixation). It is also examined whether cemented fixation offers any superiority over hybrid fixation regarding implant survival, clinical function, imaging analysis and complication rates. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on five databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Medline and Cochrane). Articles were evaluated according to levels of evidence (LoE). Retrospective studies were analysed with risk of bias in nonrandomised studies of interventions (Robins-I) and randomised controlled trials with risk of bias 2 (RoB-2). This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database. Meta-analysis was performed using R software, with Results: Data from 12 comparative studies with 1303 patients (1352 rTKAs) were analysed. Survival rates of hybrid and cemented fixations were comparable, with a significant trend favouring hybrid fixation ( Conclusion: Both hybrid and cemented fixation techniques achieve satisfactory clinical results in rTKA, with hybrid fixation demonstrating an overall lower failure rate. The choice of fixation method must be tailored to individual patient characteristics and surgical considerations. Further high-quality randomised trials are needed to refine these results and optimise fixation strategies to improve patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.