Comparison of Cemented and Cementless Fixation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of RCTs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to compare infection, aseptic loosening, revision, operation time, function scores, and the radiographic radiolucent line (RLL) between cementless and cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods Articles reporting the outcomes of cemented and cementless TKA were searched in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search was conducted from articles published from January 1996 to May 2024. Odds Ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure the results. Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Results Sixteen randomized controlled trials containing 2358 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data found that, in TKA, there were no significant differences between cemented fixation and cementless fixation for a prosthesis in infection, aseptic loosening and revision. The subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis results of the knee society score (KSS) showed a significant difference favoring cementless fixation in a follow-up of less than 5 years (MD = −2.30, 95%CI –3.85 -0.74, p = .001) while favoring cemented fixation in a follow-up over 5 years (MD = 2.79, 95%CI 0.95 4.63, p = .003). The operation time of cementless was less than that of cemented (MD = 12.03, 95%CI 8.30 15.77, p < .00001). No significant difference was detected in knee society function score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, and RLL. There was no heterogeneity across studies ( p > .1), and most studies have a low risk of bias. Conclusions Within a follow-up period of less than 5 years, cementless TKA had better KSS, while over 5 years, KSS was better in cemented TKA, and cementless TKA required less operation time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".