ArticleBone & joint open2026
Cement compression device for cemented total knee arthroplasty : a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Optimal fixation of the tibial component is crucial to prevent aseptic loosening in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This involves cement penetrating the tibia by 3 mm to 4 mm. Cement application is not standardized, and ideal penetration depth is not achieved frequently. Therefore, a cement compression device (CCD) was developed. The CCD is positioned around the tibial component, prevents cement leakage, and compresses cement into the tibia. It is hypothesized that the CCD enhances cement penetration and distribution in TKA. Methods: Patients were randomized into two groups: cement application using the finger-packing technique or the CCD. A CT scan was performed postoperatively to determine the percentage of cemented surface (PCS) per quadrant in the proximal tibia, up to 7 mm from the tibial baseplate. Differentiation between bone, cement, and prosthesis on the CT scans was performed using a previously validated method in MATLAB, based on differences in Hounsfield units. PCS was compared per quadrant for the mean of 3 mm and 4 mm depth slices and for each millimetre up to 7 mm depth. Additionally, operating time was compared. Results: In 16 patients, the finger-packing technique was used and in 16 patients, the CCD. In the anterolateral and posterolateral quadrants, PCS was 54% in the finger-packing group versus 72% in the CCD group (95% CI -28.85 to -8.17; p < 0.001), and 34% versus 46% (95% CI -22.78 to -2.05; p = 0.025), respectively. In the posteromedial quadrant, PCS was 28% versus 39% (95% CI -22.39 to -0.15; p = 0.047). In the anteromedial quadrant, PCS was higher in the CCD group, but the difference was not significant. Operating time was 66 minutes in the finger-packing group, compared with 68 minutes in the CCD group (95% CI -8.0 to 3.4; p = 0.416). Conclusion: The CCD results in improved cement penetration and distribution in TKA at the mean of 3 mm to 4 mm and reaching up to 7 mm depth from the tibial baseplate. Implementing the CCD does not prolong the procedure.
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.