Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,541 studies31 sourcesUpdated 6 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYPLOS One

Implant selection at elective aseptic revision of a primary total knee replacement: A scoping review and map of the evidence

  • Ben Tyas1,2
  • John Norman2,3
  • Shivam Nitin Kolhe1,3
  • Melissa Harden4
  • Catherine Hewitt1
  • David Deehan5,6
  • Paul Baker1,2,7
7 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
  2. 2Academic Centre for Surgery, University Hospitals Tees, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
  3. 3Trauma & Orthopaedics, Health Education England Yorkshire and the Humber, Leeds, United Kingdom.
  4. 4Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
  5. 5Trauma & Orthopaedics, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
  6. 6Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
  7. 7School of Health & Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Purpose: The recent James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) on ‘the problematic knee replacement’ highlighted implant selection at revision knee arthroplasty (rTKA) as a ‘Top 10’ research priority. The aims of this scoping review are to map the evidence for the implants used at first-time elective aseptic rTKA, to identify gaps in the evidence-base, and to provide recommendations for future research. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, and reported according to the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, SCI, PROSPERO and KSR Evidence was conducted on 17th August 2026, covering studies published between 2000 and 2026. Annual reports of 17 national joint replacement registries (NJRRs) were also sought. The review was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SD49V). Results: Following deduplication, 7,096 research articles and 155 NJRR reports were identified. After applying eligibility criteria, 121 research articles and six NJRR reports were included. Twenty-two studies (18%) had cohorts clearly defined as exclusively comprising first-time elective aseptic rTKA procedures. The evidence consisted mostly of retrospective case series (45/121, 37%) and retrospective comparative studies (41/121, 34%). Most evidence was Level IV (48/121, 40%) or Level III (46/121, 38%) with no Level I evidence identified. Approximately half the studies were from the United States (58/102, 48%). Five studies (4%) reported mean or median follow up ≥10 years. A map of the evidence, tabulated by five key themes, is presented. Conclusions: There is a lack of high-level comparative evidence to support implant selection at first-time elective aseptic rTKA. Future research should focus on more clinically homogeneous cohorts and compare outcomes associated with cemented versus hybrid/cementless stems, constraint levels, and metaphyseal fixation devices.

Related

  1. Selection of Dental Implant Biomaterial by Using a Developed MCDM Solver
    Dušan Lj. Petković, Miloš J. Madić, Kosta M. Todorović
    Applied SciencesPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral biologyGeneral chemistryDOAJ
  2. Built-in Selection Bias in Proportional Hazards Models with Omitted Covariates: Simulation Evidence and Alternative Approaches
    Ayoub Bifenzi, Helene Jacqmin-Gadda
    Statistical Methods in Medical ResearchPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textGeneral biologyEpidemiology & public healthHAL
  3. π-MNovo improves de novo peptide sequencing through microbial-domain adaptation and evidence-guided candidate selection
    J. Ye, X. Zhang, B. Sun +9
    bioRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textBioinformatics & computational biologybioRxiv
  4. Gene-environment interaction loci with signatures of mid- to late Holocene selection show evidence for diet-dependent genetic effects
    L. Wijnhoven, D. Yermakovich, M. Dannemann
    bioRxivPreprintCC BY-NCFull textGenetics & genomicsbioRxiv
  5. Do Abies religiosa Seedlings That Survived Hot/Dry Range‐Edge Conditions Exhibit Genetic Evidence of Selection?
    Yinyue Du, Emily V. Moran, Ruli Zhang +2
    Ecology and EvolutionPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textGenetics & genomicsCrossrefEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{tyas2026implant,
  title = {{Implant selection at elective aseptic revision of a primary total knee replacement: A scoping review and map of the evidence}},
  author = {Ben Tyas and John Norman and Shivam Nitin Kolhe and Melissa Harden and Catherine Hewitt and David Deehan and Paul Baker},
  journal = {PLOS One},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0361040},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361040},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Implant selection at elective aseptic revision of a primary total knee replacement: A scoping review and map of the evidence
AU  - Ben Tyas
AU  - John Norman
AU  - Shivam Nitin Kolhe
AU  - Melissa Harden
AU  - Catherine Hewitt
AU  - David Deehan
AU  - Paul Baker
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/21
JO  - PLOS One
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pone.0361040
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361040
AB  - Purpose: The recent James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) on ‘the problematic knee replacement’ highlighted implant selection at revision knee arthroplasty (rTKA) as a ‘Top 10’ research priority. The aims of this scoping review are to map the evidence for the implants used at first-time elective aseptic rTKA, to identify gaps in the evidence-base, and to provide recommendations for future research. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, and reported according to the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, SCI, PROSPERO and KSR Evidence was conducted on 17th August 2026, covering studies published between 2000 and 2026. Annual reports of 17 national joint replacement registries (NJRRs) were also sought. The review was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SD49V). Results: Following deduplication, 7,096 research articles and 155 NJRR reports were identified. After applying eligibility criteria, 121 research articles and six NJRR reports were included. Twenty-two studies (18%) had cohorts clearly defined as exclusively comprising first-time elective aseptic rTKA procedures. The evidence consisted mostly of retrospective case series (45/121, 37%) and retrospective comparative studies (41/121, 34%). Most evidence was Level IV (48/121, 40%) or Level III (46/121, 38%) with no Level I evidence identified. Approximately half the studies were from the United States (58/102, 48%). Five studies (4%) reported mean or median follow up ≥10 years. A map of the evidence, tabulated by five key themes, is presented. Conclusions: There is a lack of high-level comparative evidence to support implant selection at first-time elective aseptic rTKA. Future research should focus on more clinically homogeneous cohorts and compare outcomes associated with cemented versus hybrid/cementless stems, constraint levels, and metaphyseal fixation devices.
SN  - 1932-6203
ER  -