The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide estimates of patient outcomes following tricompartmental knee replacement and to examine variation in outcomes due to patient and prosthesis characteristics. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles identified through a computerized literature search and bibliography review. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they enrolled 10 or more patients at the time of initial knee replacement and measured patient outcomes using a global knee-rating scale. DATA EXTRACTION: Each study was subjected to a blinded qualitative assessment and unblinded abstraction of patient characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 studies reporting patient outcomes on 154 cohorts satisfied inclusion criteria. The total number of enrolled patients was 9879 with a mean enrollment of 64.1 patients. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years. The mean patient age was 65.0 years, 71.7% of patients were women, 62.6% had osteoarthritis, and 26.6% underwent bilateral knee replacement. Global rating scale scores improved by 100% for the typical enrolled patient, and 89.3% of patients reported good or excellent outcomes. Anatomic classification of the prosthesis, percentage of enrolled patients with osteoarthritis, publication year, and number of enrolled patients explained 27% of the variation in reported mean postoperative global rating scale scores. The weighted mean complication rate was 18.1%, and the mean mortality rate per year of follow-up was 1.5%. The overall rate of revision during 4.1 years was 3.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Tricompartmental knee replacement was a safe and effective procedure for the patients reported in these studies. The knee pathology and the type of prosthesis were significant predictors of outcomes. Limitations in the reporting style of these articles severely constrain the ability to explore variation in outcomes due to study, patient, or prosthesis characteristics and restrict their generalizability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Zhang, W., Moskowitz, R. W., Nuki, G., Abramson, S., Altman, R. D., Arden, N., Bierma-Zeinstra, S., Brandt, K. D., Croft, P., Doherty, M., et al. (2008) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.013 · Cited by 2,796
Quintana, J. M., Escobar, A., Bilbao, A., Arostegui, I., Lafuente, I., & Vidaurreta, I. (2005) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2005.06.012 · Cited by 510
Hunter, D. J., & Felson, D. T. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7542.639 · Cited by 507
Estimating the Burden of Total Knee Replacement in the United States
Weinstein, A. M., Rome, B. N., Reichmann, W. M., Collins, J. E., Burbine, S. A., Thornhill, T. S., Wright, J., Katz, J. N., & Losina, E. (2013) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00206 · Cited by 469
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES MEDICARE POPULATION
MAHOMED, N. N., BARRETT, J., KATZ, J. N., BARON, J. A., WRIGHT, J., & LOSINA, E. (2005) · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200506000-00006 · Cited by 400
Metadata
- Authors
- Callahan, C. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1994-05-04
- Volume
- 271
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 1349-1357
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4251858832
- Cited by
- 506
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.271.17.1349
- The paper
- Callahan, C. M. (1994). Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.271.17.1349
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
