Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18647740›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2008

The combined role of wear particles, macrophages and lymphocytes in the loosening of total joint prostheses.

Peter A Revell

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Orthopedic meta-implants.APL bioengineering · 2024
    Article
  12. Immune dysregulation and macrophage polarization in peri-implantitis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter A RevellDivision of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, UK. parevell@btinternet.com
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review considers the causes of loosening of prosthetic joint replacement paying attention to the biological mechanisms rather than other effects that are physical, such as component fracture and other failure related to mechanical problems. Infection accounts for approximately 1.5 per cent of joint loosening and when it occurs it is a cause of serious concern to the surgeon. The loosening of prosthetic joints in the absence of infection is by far the most common reason for revision surgery and is known as aseptic loosening. While this may be multifactorial in terms of causation, and non-biological factors may contribute significantly in a particular individual, a significant part is undoubtedly played by the generation of wear debris, mainly from the bearing surfaces of the joint, and the cellular reaction to this in the implant bed. Phagocytic cells (macrophages and multinucleated giant cells) are the ones that remove foreign material from the tissues, and the ways in which these cells function in the interface between implant and bone are described. Mediators produced locally include numerous cytokines, enzymes and integrins. There is evidence for interactions between macrophages and locally recruited lymphocytes, which may or may not give rise to an immunologically mediated process.Sensitization of individuals having metal implants in place has been shown by positive skin tests or blood lymphocyte transformation tests and in these cases has been accompanied by loosening and failure of the replacement joint. The question remains as to whether this process is also present in a proportion of individuals with aseptic loosening in the absence of clearly defined clinical evidence of sensitization.Numerous studies performed by the author's group and, latterly, by others suggest that the cellular reactions detected in the tissues in cases of aseptic loosening are indeed those of contact sensitization. There is good evidence to show that a type IV cell-mediated immune reaction is taking place, with TH1 cell involvement and active antigen presentation. The extent to which sensitization is present in individual cases of aseptic loosening remains a subject for further work and this needs all the sophisticated molecular methods now available to modern biology to be applied in appropriate prospective clinical studies coupled with experimental models in vitro and in vivo. Immunological processes may play a more important part in joint loosening than previously considered.

Indexed as

Joint ProsthesisProsthesis FailureBone CementsChromium AlloysHumansLymphocytesMacrophagesMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionPhagocytosisPolyethyleneBone CementsChromium AlloysPolyethylene

Identifiers

PMID18647740
PMCPMC2607446
OpenAlexW2169802840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.