Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083895›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty today2025

Revision Rates for Aseptic Loosening in the Obese Patient: A Comparison Between Stemmed, Uncemented, and Unstemmed Tibial Total Knee Arthroplasty Components.

Bernard H van Duren, Amy M Firth, Reshid Berber, Hosam E Matar, Peter J James, Benjamin V Bloch

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bernard H van DurenNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Amy M FirthNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Reshid BerberNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Hosam E MatarNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Peter J JamesNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Benjamin V BlochNottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment option for high body mass index (BMI) patients achieving similar outcomes to nonobese patients. However, increased rates of aseptic loosening in patients with a high BMI have been reported. Component fixation is a concern when performing TKA in the obese patient. To address this concern in cemented TKA, extended tibial stems have been used. Uncemented implants that take advantage of biologic osseointegration have also been advocated. This retrospective study examined the use of and revision rates of extended cemented tibial stems and uncemented implants compared with conventional cemented implants in our high BMI patient population. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of 3239 primary Attune TKAs (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana). All obese patients (BMI > 30 kg/m Results: In total, there were 1512 knees that met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 6.8, 5.1, and 5.3 years for cemented, stemmed, and cementless groups, respectively. There were 37 all-cause revisions identified. Seven were for aseptic loosening (2 tibial, 1 femoral, and 4 involving both components); all of these were in the standard cemented implant group. There were no revisions in the stemmed or cementless implant groups. Survival analysis did not show any significant differences between groups for either all-cause revision or for aseptic loosening. Conclusions: This retrospective analysis showed that there were no revisions required for aseptic loosening when a cemented, stemmed, or uncemented implant was used in obese patients. These findings show that cementless and extended stem implants are a reasonable option in obese patients. Level of evidence: Level III.

Indexed as

BMICementlessLooseningObesityRevisionTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID40083895
PMCPMC11904599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.