ArticleActa orthopaedica2016
No increased risk of early revision during the implementation phase of new cup designs.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low evidence for implementation of well-documented implants regarding risk of early revision: a systematic review on total hip arthroplasty.EFORT open reviews · 2021Review
- Increased risk for dislocation after introduction of the Continuum cup system: lessons learnt from a cohort of 1,381 THRs after 1-year follow-up.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- Article
- Electronic Supplementum no 362: ISAR meeting Gothenburg 2015, Sweden.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - In Sweden, less than 5% of patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) have revision. Younger patients have an increased risk of revision. New prosthetic designs are being introduced in order to improve outcomes further. We investigated whether the introductory phase of new cup designs would increase the revision rate. Patients and methods - All THAs and first-time cup revisions performed from 1993 through 2011 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. The 15 types of cups used in more than 500 operations and inserted in more than 50 cases in each hospital (n = 52,903) were selected. All cups were given an order number, based on the order in which the cup had been inserted at each hospital. The influence of order number on the risk of revision was analyzed in a regression model, which was adjusted for potentially confounding demographic and surgical data. Revision within 2 years for all reasons (n = 940) was used as primary endpoint. Changes in the risk of revision based on the order number were analyzed using a spline. Results - The order number of the cup had no influence on the risk of early revision (p ≥ 0.7). Categorizing the order number using cutoff values obtained from the splines did not result in any statistically significant changes in risk of revision (p ≥ 0.2). Interpretation - We did not find any increased risk of early revision during the implementation phase of new cup designs. This finding is unexpected, and partly conflicts with data from other registries. The structured and stepwise introduction of new prosthesis designs, facilitated by the annual feedback from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, may partly explain this discrepancy.
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.