SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of patellar lateral retraction and patellar eversion in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to the mobilization technique of the intraoperative patella, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be categorized into patellar eversion (PE) and patellar lateral retraction (PLR). Comparisons between the two procedures are inconclusive; therefore, the study purpose was to assess the postoperative clinical efficacy to identify the most suitable procedure.
methodsElectronic databases were searched, including Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, and WANFANG, to identify clinical trials of PLR versus PE from inception to May 2023. The statistical software Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 were applied to the data analysis.
resultsFifteen studies evaluating a total of 1349 patients and 1409 knees were ultimately included. Statistically significant differences emerged between the PLR and PE groups with respect to blood loss (P = 0.02), incision length (P < 0.001), operation time (P = 0.01), straight leg raise (P < 0.001), knee range of motion (ROM; P < 0.05), the Knee Society Score (KSS) functional score (P = 0.0003), the visual analogue scale (VAS) score (1 and 3 months, both P < 0.05), and operative complications (P = 0.02). Furthermore, the PLR and PE groups had similar clinical efficacy in terms of quadriceps strength, VAS score (1 week and 1 year), Hospital for Special Surgery score, KSS pain score, Insall-Salvati ratio, and the occurrence of patella baja (all P ≥ 0.05).
conclusionsThe PLR procedure is superior to PE in terms of blood loss, incision length, straight leg raise, knee ROM, VAS score (1 and 3 months), KSS functional score, and operative complications, although PE could decrease the operation time. PLR could achieve better postoperative clinical outcomes than could PE. Therefore, it is recommended that experienced surgeons prioritize PLR in TKA. REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the PROSPERO international registry (Registration ID: CRD42023440722).
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.