Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/122090
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMigliorini, Filippo-
dc.contributor.authorPilone, Marco-
dc.contributor.authorSchäfer, Luise-
dc.contributor.authorVaishya, Raju-
dc.contributor.authorMemminger, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorMaffulli, Nicola-
dc.date.accessioned2026-02-09T12:54:18Z-
dc.date.available2026-02-09T12:54:18Z-
dc.date.issued2026-
dc.identifier.urihttps://opendata.uni-halle.de//handle/1981185920/124038-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.25673/122090-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Medial pivot total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was developed to reproduce native knee kinematics and improve function. Second-generation designs introduced refinements to enhance medial conformity and lateral rollback, but their clinical benefit remains uncertain. This systematic review compared outcomes of first- and second-generation medial pivot implants. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar was performed in August 2025 following PRISMA guidelines. Comparative and non-comparative studies reporting outcomes after first- or second-generation medial pivot TKA were included. Primary endpoints were Knee Society Score (KSS), functional subscale (KSS-F), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), WOMAC, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), range of motion (ROM), and revision rates. Results Twenty-four studies including 4686 patients (3541 first-generation; 1145 s-generation) were analysed. Most baseline variables were comparable, though BMI, follow-up duration, and baseline WOMAC and ROM showed minor differences. At the latest follow-up, KSS, KSS-F, WOMAC, and FJS showed no significant differences. Revision rates were similar. OKS was slightly lower in the second-generation cohort (MD −2.5, p = 0.04), and ROM was greater (MD 4.6°, p = 0.01), but both fell below minimal clinically important difference thresholds. Conclusion First- and second-generation medial pivot TKAs achieved comparable outcomes and survivorship. Although second-generation designs showed statistical improvements in ROM and OKS, these were not clinically relevant. These findings suggest that while design refinements of second-generation implants may offer minor biomechanical advantages, they do not translate into significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Surgical decision-making should be based on the surgeon's experience, implant availability, and patient-specific factors rather than expectations of superior performance from newer designs.eng
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/-
dc.subject.ddc610-
dc.titleImpact of implant generation on the outcomes in medial pivot total knee arthroplasty : a systematic revieweng
dc.typeArticle-
local.versionTypepublishedVersion-
local.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleJournal of orthopaedics-
local.bibliographicCitation.volume73-
local.bibliographicCitation.pagestart42-
local.bibliographicCitation.pageend49-
local.bibliographicCitation.publishernameElsevier-
local.bibliographicCitation.publisherplaceAmsterdam [u.a.]-
local.bibliographicCitation.doi10.1016/j.jor.2025.12.007-
local.openaccesstrue-
dc.identifier.ppn1960378945-
cbs.publication.displayform2026-
local.bibliographicCitation.year2026-
cbs.sru.importDate2026-02-09T12:53:54Z-
local.bibliographicCitationEnthalten in Journal of orthopaedics - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2004-
local.accessrights.dnbfree-
Appears in Collections:Open Access Publikationen der MLU

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-S0972978X25004817-main.pdf1.81 MBAdobe PDFView/Open