ReviewIrish journal of medical science2025
Improved performance of cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA)across international registries: a comparative review.
Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Cementless Highly Porous Titanium Tibial Baseplate in Patients Under the Age of 50: An Average 7.6-year Follow-up.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Radiographic features of bone ingrowth in highly porous cementless total knee arthroplasty with minimum 2-year follow-up.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Effect of tibial tray backside design on stress transfer and micromotion in uncemented posterior-stabilized TKA: A finite element study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Review
- Cementless total knee arthroplasty: Why, when, and how.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Review
- Reframing Fixation Strategy in Total Knee Arthroplasty With Tibial Bone Density as a Central Criterion.JB & JS open accessReview
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
backgroundCementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been associated with higher revision rates in the past. However, due to advancements in design, as well as surgical techniques, cementless TKA performance has significantly improved. The advantages of cementless fixation include reduced cement-related complications, shorter operating times, and the potential benefits of osseointegration. We aim to assess the improvement in revision rates for cementless TKA over the last 9 years based on international registry reports.
methodsA comprehensive retrospective review was conducted of six major English-speaking knee arthroplasty registries across the world including the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, Northern Islan Isle of Man and Guernsey (herby referred to as British), Swedish, Canadian, American, Australian, and New Zealand National Joint Registry. Data was collected from the year 2014 along with the most recent annual report published: 2022 or 2023. Data points collected included usage rates of cemented and cementless prostheses for primary TKA, their respective revision rates, and indications for revision.
resultsAcross four databases, there was an average 8.3% increase in the utilization of cementless fixation for primary TKA over the past decade. Three registries reported a reduction in revision rates for cementless fixation. Lower revision rates for cementless compared to cemented TKA were observed in the most recent American (3.2% cemented vs. 2.8% cementless) and New Zealand annual reports (11.8% cemented vs. 4.5% cementless). In 2022, the British registry reported lower rates of revision for infection with cementless fixation (0.56 vs. 0.89).
conclusionInternational registries demonstrate increased utilization of cementless TKA. Cementless TKA was reported to have lower revision rates in the most recent US and New Zealand annual reports when compared to cemented TKA.
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.