SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparing simultaneous and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (StaBTKA) is generally considered lower in perioperative risk, while simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SimBTKA) enables one-stage deformity correction and potential earlier rehabilitation, with its safety debated. This study aimed to systematically compare their clinical outcomes using available observational evidence.
methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2025. Cohort studies comparing SimBTKA and StaBTKA were included, and all eligible studies were observational in design.
resultsA total of 53 cohort studies involving 572,881 patients were included, comprising 244,207 patients in the SimBTKA group and 328,674 in the StaBTKA group. In studies reporting comparable short-term mortality windows, SimBTKA was associated with higher reported short-term mortality than StaBTKA (OR = 2.35, 95% CI 1.69-3.27, P < 0.001). SimBTKA was also associated with a higher incidence of deep vein thrombosis (OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.37-1.53; P < 0.001) and greater transfusion requirements (OR = 4.42, 95% CI 3.11-6.28; P < 0.001). Length of stay tended to be shorter with SimBTKA, particularly in Asian studies; however, substantial heterogeneity limited the interpretability of a precise pooled estimate. In contrast, StaBTKA was associated with higher rates of superficial and deep infection (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.89; P = 0.004; OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.61-0.70; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two strategies in revision rates, pulmonary embolism, neurological complications, or cardiac events.
conclusionSimBTKA and StaBTKA have distinct risk profiles rather than one being universally superior. SimBTKA was linked to higher reported short-term mortality, DVT, and transfusion, whereas StaBTKA was associated with higher infection rates. The mortality finding should be interpreted cautiously because survivor selection bias may underestimate true risk in the StaBTKA group. Surgical strategy should be individualized, balancing patient comorbidities, perioperative safety, treatment efficiency, and healthcare resource utilization.
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.