SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
"Anatomic patella design versus medialized dome design in the modern posterior stabilized (ATTUNE) total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis".
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatellar component design in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can influence patellofemoral kinematics and clinical outcomes. The medialized dome design (MDD) aligns the patella apex more medially, while the anatomic patella design (APD) aims to replicate the native patella's shape and tracking. Although biomechanical studies suggest potential benefits of APD, clinical evidence remains inconclusive.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of MDD and APD in a modern posterior-stabilized TKA (ATTUNE system). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science on January 10, 2025, without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort designs evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revisions, complications, range of motion (ROM), and radiologic measures of patellar stability. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for cohort studies. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using Hedges's g and random-effects modeling.
resultsSeven studies, including three RCTs and four cohort studies, with a total of 1,069 patients and 1,113 knees (507 APD vs. 606 MDD), were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in PROMs (Hedges's g = 0.09; 95% CI [-0.04 to 0.22]; P = 0.17) or ROM (Hedges's g = 0.02; 95% CI [-0.21 to 0.26]; P = 0.83) between APD and MDD. While revision rates and complications were higher for APD, the differences were not statistically significant compared to MDD (14 vs 9). Radiographic measures showed inconsistencies and did not definitively favor either design.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that APD offers no clear clinical advantage over MDD in the ATTUNE posterior-stabilized TKA. Both designs yield broadly comparable PROMs and knee function outcomes. Larger RCTs with extended follow-up are warranted to clarify the safety of APD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.