ReviewCureus2026
Aseptic Failure Rates in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Structural Allografts Versus Porous Metal Cones for Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Grade 2 and 3 Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non-randomized Studies.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management of significant bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) poses unique challenges. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of structural allografts and porous metal cones for Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Grade 2 and 3 defects, focusing on their re-revision rates due to aseptic loosening. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up to June 2023. We included original clinical studies (January 2000-June 2023) assessing structural allografts or porous metal cones in rTKA for AORI 2 or 3 defects. Data from 52 studies (2,568 cases) were analyzed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled re-revision rates due to aseptic loosening. Subgroup analyses were conducted among the metal cones studies to explore heterogeneity sources. The pooled incidence of re-revision due to aseptic loosening was significantly lower for porous metal cones at 0.71% (95% CI: 0.33%-1.51%) compared to 2.81% (95% CI: 1.11%-6.92%) for allografts. Subgroup analysis indicated that re-revision rates for metal cones remained consistently low across varying follow-up durations, affirming their sustained effectiveness. Variability in re-revision rates by study size suggested higher incidences in larger studies, possibly reflecting the complexity of cases or differences in clinical practices. Temporal trend analysis highlighted an increasing preference for metal cones since 2012. Porous metal cones demonstrate superior mid-term durability with significantly lower re-revision rates compared to structural allografts for severe metaphyseal bone defects. Long-term functional outcomes and patient-specific recommendations are necessary to further validate these findings.
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.