Survivorship and Functional Outcomes of Cementless versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the evidence supporting the use of cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Specifically, we evaluated (1) all-cause survivorship, (2) aseptic survivorship, and (3) functional outcomes (Knee Society Scores [KSS], Oxford Knee Scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] scores, and ranges of motion [ROMs]). A literature search was performed for studies that evaluated cementless versus cemented TKAs published between 2000 and 2017. Selected studies included three randomized controlled trials, three retrospective observational studies, and one prospective observational study that met the following criteria: (1) primary TKAs, (2) compared cementless and cemented TKAs, (3) implant survivorship that described the causes of failure, and (4) at least one functional outcome. To compare the two cohorts, pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to calculate tibial and femoral implant survivorship, and pooled mean differences (MD) and 95% CI calculated the functional scores and ROMs. Based on pooled data from the few number of studies, cementless TKAs had a better all-cause survivorship (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15–0.92) and tended to have a better aseptic survivorship (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17–1.14). However, this is likely due to the 83.3% weight of the single cementless study potentially influencing the analysis. There were no differences in terms of KSS knee (MD = 1.03; 95% CI, −1.13–3.20) or function scores (MD = 5.36; 95% CI, –3.75–14.51), Oxford knee scores (MD = 0.36; 95% CI, –3.84–4.56), or WOMAC scores (MD = 0.62; 95% CI, –0.87–2.11). Moreover, there was no difference in ROMs (MD = 1.47; 95% CI, –0.11–3.05). Cementless TKA had a better all-cause survivorship when compared with cemented fixation, and similar functional outcomes were demonstrated. However, these findings are based on only a few number of studies (n = 7). Therefore, additional prospective, randomized control trials need to be performed to best compare cementless versus cemented outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".