SynthesisPloS one2026
Medial pivot designs result in improved patient reported outcome measures and range of motion when compared to cruciate retaining total knee replacements: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnee arthroplasty remains one of the most important treatment options in improving quality of life for patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. However, roughly 20% of patients remain dissatisfied with their outcome. Perceived implant instability and range of motion are factors that may contribute to dissatisfaction. The medial pivot (MP) total knee replacement (TKR) is postulated to provide increased stability due to greater implant conformity and replication of anatomical function compared to cruciate retaining (CR) implants. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the impact of MP TKR on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs,) range of motion (ROM), pain scores and functional assessment measures in comparison to traditional CR implants. METHODS AND
findingsAn extensive literature search of multiple databases was conducted to identify eligible high quality studies which compared PROMs data for MP and CR TKR, with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Our primary outcome was the forgotten joint score (FJS-12). Secondary outcomes included additions PROMs, ROM data and functional assessments. Risk of bias and quality of research were assessed by GRADE rating and the AMQPP tool respectively. A total of 7 articles were included in the systematic review, encompassing 675 patients aged 59-86 years. Four studies assessed FJS-12, with mean difference of 7.46 (-2.44-17.37) in favour of MP TKRs, which was not statistically significant. Overall, 1415 PROM scores from 675 patients were included, giving a statistically significant difference 0.34 (0.16-0.52) and an effect size of 3.69 (p = 0.0002) in favour of MP designs utilising a standardised mean difference analysis. ROM data demonstrated an overall statistically significant mean difference of 4.63° (1.00-8.27) in favour of MP knees. Further functional outcomes, laxity, power measures demonstrated favourable outcomes for MP knees but were ineligible for inclusion in pooled analyses.
conclusionNo statistical difference was observed for the majority of PROMs. PROMs including FJS-12, range of motion and functional outcome scores trended towards favouring MP TKRs; with a statistically significance advantage seen for pooled PROMs scores and ROM. However, there remains limited data relating to functional outcome measures within the literature. Further high-powered, multicentre studies are required to analyse whether MP TKRs are superior to CR TKRs regarding functional outcomes.
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.