ArticleBone & joint open2025
Comparative analysis of early radiolucencies in cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiographic features of bone ingrowth in highly porous cementless total knee arthroplasty with minimum 2-year follow-up.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Cement compression device for cemented total knee arthroplasty : a randomized controlled trial.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to compare early outcomes of cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: We analyzed 593 patients who underwent cemented or cementless TKA between January 2017 and December 2022. Data collected included demographics, BMI, comorbidities, surgical variables, follow-up duration, and outcomes such as implant survivorship, radiolucencies (assessed using the Modern Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System (MKSRES)), short-term complications, revision rates, periprosthetic fractures, hospital length of stay, and readmissions. Results: The study included 593 patients, equally divided into cemented and cementless groups. Age (p = 0.354) and sex (p = 0.342) were similar, though BMI was higher in the cementless group (p < 0.001). Comorbidities were comparable. Radiolucencies and osteolysis occurred in 12 cemented and ten cementless cases, with no significant differences across femoral and tibial zones (p ≥ 0.479). All radiolucencies were stable, partial, and non-progressive. No cases of aseptic loosening required revision. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were rare (p = 0.218). Hospital length of stay (p = 0.623) and readmissions (p = 0.216) were similar between groups. The mean follow-up time postoperatively was slightly longer in the cementless group (4.22 years (SD 0.84)) compared to the cemented group (4.01 years (SD 1.03)) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Cemented fixation remains the gold standard in TKA due to its reliability, yet advancements in implant design and indications support increasing adoption of cementless TKA. This study found comparable early outcomes for both methods, with stable radiolucent lines and no aseptic loosening during follow-up. The MKSRES facilitates standard radiological assessment, enabling precise implant monitoring and improving TKA outcome evaluation. These findings support the equivalence of cemented and cementless fixation in early survivorship.
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.