ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Early Survivorship Analysis of a Modern Anatomic Cementless Tibial Baseplate: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cementless total knee arthroplasty has seen increased adoption given the potential for durable biologic fixation. However, limited data exist on modern anatomic cementless tibial baseplate designs. This study evaluates early survivorship and functional outcomes of a novel cementless tibial baseplate compared to a cemented counterpart from the same manufacturer. Methods: A multicenter retrospective review was conducted of 394 patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty at 2 academic-affiliated institutions from 2018 to 2023. Of these, 183 received a porous anatomic cementless tibial baseplate (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN) and 211 received a Genesis II cemented tibial baseplate. Mean follow-up was 1.4 years and 2.7 years, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause revision-free survivorship; secondary outcomes included aseptic tibial loosening and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome for Joint Replacement scores. Results: One patient in each group required revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening. Two-year all-cause revision-free survivorship was 96.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.2-100) in the cementless group and 96.0% (95% CI: 92.6-99.6) in the cemented group ( Conclusions: This cementless tibial baseplate demonstrated low early revision and aseptic loosening rates; however, imprecise Cox regression estimates preclude conclusions regarding equivalent survivorship. Longer-term prospective studies with contemporary controls are warranted. Level of Evidence: III, Retrospective comparative cohort study.
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.