ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015
Cemented total hip arthroplasty revisions in patients of eighty years and older.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cemented versus uncemented total hip replacement for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective, multicentre study with a mean 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Fixation pattern of conical and cylindrical modular revision hip stems in different size bone defects.International orthopaedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is often a difficult decision whether it is safe to perform revision hip surgery in a patient of 80 years and older. Therefore we evaluated the results of cemented revisions in these elderly patients.
methodsClinical data, radiographs and complications of 49 consecutive cup and/or stem revisions in 48 patients were prospectively collected. The average age of the patients at surgery was 84 years (range, 80-92). We performed Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and also a competing risk (CR) analysis because in this series the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of endpoint rerevision.
resultsTwenty-nine patients (30 hips) died without rerevision during follow-up and their data was included. The average follow-up of the 16 surviving patients was eight years (range, six to 13). Six re-operations were performed, of which three were re-revisions. Eight-year survivorship was 91.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 76-97%) for endpoint re-revision for any reason. With the CR analysis we calculated that due to the increasing number of competing events, the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with 32% for this endpoint. The average Harris hip score improved from 49 to 74. Mortality within three months after surgery was 6%. One postoperative fracture occurred and six hips dislocated.
conclusionCemented revisions can provide satisfying results in patient of 80 years and older with acceptable survivorship and complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25864087What 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.