Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40197835›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

No difference in 5-year survivorship between cemented versus cementless total knee arthroplasty in a cohort of 5266 patients using a deep-dish mobile bearing implant.

Ophélie Manchec, Emilie Bérard, Regis Pailhé, Sébastien Lustig, Etienne Cavaignac

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Ophélie ManchecService de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologie, hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, CHU Purpan, Toulouse, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4818-8324
Emilie BérardService d'Épidémiologie Clinique et de Santé Publique, CHU de Toulouse, CERPOP, Inserm, Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Regis PailhéService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Clinique Aguiléra, Ramsay Santé, Biarritz, France.
Sébastien LustigService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Hopital de la Croix-Rousse, Lyon, France.
Etienne CavaignacService de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologie, hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, CHU Purpan, Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe best fixation method for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of cemented and cementless fixation on prosthesis survivorship. Our primary hypothesis is that there is no difference in survivorship between cemented and cementless TKA. Our secondary hypothesis is that there is no difference in aseptic revisions and functional outcomes between cemented and cementless TKA at mid-term follow-up.

methodsA multicentre retrospective study was done using data collected prospectively in a large cohort. The same deep-dish mobile bearing design was used for both cemented and cementless TKA. Patients were divided into two groups according to the fixation method. The survival rate between cemented and cementless TKA was compared. Functional outcomes were collected preoperatively and at the 5-year follow-up.

resultsOf the 5266 primary TKA included, 4549 were cementless, and 717 were cemented. At 5 years, there was no significant difference between the survivorship of the cementless (98.7% [95% confidence interval, CI: 98.2-99.1]) and cemented TKA (97.6%, [95% CI: 94.1-99.1]) (p = 0.468). There was no significant difference in the surgery-free survival at 5 years between cementless (95.8% [95% CI: 94.9-96.5]) and cemented TKA (95.5% [95% CI: 92.1-97.5]) (p = 0.508) as well as in aseptic revision: cementless (96.9% [95% CI: 96.2-97.5]) and cemented TKA (97.5 [95% CI: 95.5-98.6]) (p = 0.355). There was no significant difference in the functional outcomes at 5 years.

conclusionThere was no observed difference in survivorship between cemented and cementless TKA at 5 years in this cohort of 5266 patients. Additionally, rates of reoperation and aseptic revision were similar across both fixation methods, and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly. Therefore, it may be suggested that cementless fixation is a safe option for primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisAgedAged, 80 and overBone CementsCementationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesBone Cementscementcementlessmobile bearingprothesis designsurvival ratetotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID40197835
PMCPMC12392385

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.