ArticleArthroplasty today2016
Comparing contemporary revision burden among hip and knee joint replacement registries.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- When a Major Orthopaedic Device Manufacturer Does Not Offer Replacement Components for Revision Surgeries.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Diverging trends in primary and revision arthroplasty in Germany: projections and implications for healthcare delivery for the next ten years.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Data-Driven Strategies in Orthopaedics: Optimizing Surgical Precision and Patient Outcomes.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Bioelectronic Medicines-A Novel Approach of Therapeutics in Current Epoch.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Review
- A Comprehensive Research on the Prevalence and Evolution Trend of Orthopedic Surgeries in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Surgical Trends of Shoulder Arthroplasty: Nationwide Epidemiologic Study in South Korea.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Impact of resident involvement on complication rates in revision total knee arthroplasty.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2022Article
- Early outcomes of using custom-made augments in revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Bioelectronic multifunctional bone implants: recent trends.Bioelectronic medicine · 2022Review
- The Impact of Morbid Obesity on In-hospital Outcomes after Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022Article
- A prospective study on outcome of patient-specific cones in revision knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021Article
- Capacitive interdigitated system of high osteoinductive/conductive performance for personalized acting-sensing implants.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2021Article
- International variation in distribution of ASA class in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty and its influence on mortality: data from an international consortium of arthroplasty registries.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Article
- Assessment of Extractability and Accuracy of Electronic Health Record Data for Joint Implant Registries.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Towards an effective sensing technology to monitor micro-scale interface loosening of bioelectronic implants.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Indian Experience.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Barriers to Revision Total Hip Service Lines: A Surgeon's Perspective Through a Deterministic Financial Model.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Peptide-Enriched Silk Fibroin Sponge and Trabecular Titanium Composites to Enhance Bone Ingrowth of Prosthetic Implants in an Ovine Model of Bone Gaps.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Altering the Course of Technologies to Monitor Loosening States of Endoprosthetic Implants.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHip and knee arthroplasties are common and successful procedures, however, success and durability are not guaranteed. The revision burden, defined as the ratio of implant revisions to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, is a measure of the steady state of arthroplasty success in a given registry. This study examines the hypothesis that revision burden would be similar among contemporary joint replacement registries and improving over time compared with historic controls.
methodsWe evaluated the national joint registries of 5 health systems (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR]; National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man; New Zealand Joint Registry [NZJR]; Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register [SHAR] and Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register [SKAR]; and the American Joint Replacement Registry [AJRR]) for hip and knee revision burden over the past 4 years or since registry inception. Historic controls were obtained from previously published reports.
resultsThe 2014 hip revision burden varied from 9.7 percent (NJR) to 11.9 percent (NZJR), and the unweighted average was 10.4 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean hip revision burden was 11.9, 11.9, and 11.4 percent. The 2014 knee revision burden varied from to 6.0 percent (NJR) to 8.1 percent (AJRR), and the unweighted average for the 5 registries studied was 7.0 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean knee revision burden was 6.9, 7.0, and 7.0 percent. Historically, the observed hip revision burden was 15.8 percent and the knee revision burden 8.0 percent.
conclusionsRevision burden has gradually decreased for hip replacements and has remained relatively constant for knee replacements both for the last 4 years and compared to historic controls. Knee revision burden was lower than hip revision burden for each period examined. Revision burden is one measure that may be helpful in following the effect of changes in surgical technique and implant design over time in registry populations and may be a helpful way to compare overall results between registries.
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.