Impact of implant generation on the outcomes in medial pivot total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 41487688.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jor.2025.12.007 and PMC identifier 12756188.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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. Level III.
Anatomy
- knee