ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2013
Method of fixation does not influence the overall risk of rerevision in first-time cup revisions.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A significant change towards cemented fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years in the Netherlands: results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 28,516 primary hip replacements and 1285 revision procedures.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2023Observational
- Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: an analysis of 1,037 revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2019Article
- [A retrospective study on the application of cemented polyethylene liner technique in hip revision].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2018Article
- Do Patients Live Longer After THA and Is the Relative Survival Diagnosis-specific?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
- Do dual-mobility cups cemented into porous tantalum shells reduce the risk of dislocation after revision surgery?Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- Does the Risk of Rerevision Vary Between Porous Tantalum Cups and Other Cementless Designs After Revision Hip Arthroplasty?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Is Preoperative Patient-Reported Health Status Associated with Mortality after Total Hip Replacement?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
- No increased risk of early revision during the implementation phase of new cup designs.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Article
- Short-term survival of the trabecular metal cup is similar to that of standard cups used in acetabular revision surgery.Acta orthopaedica · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision.
methodsBetween 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision.
resultsThe relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91).
conclusionsWe found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.