ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2017
Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- International trends in shoulder replacement: a meta-analysis from 11 public joint registers.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Pooled it
- Hydroxyapatite-coated implants provide better fixation in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Current status of Asian joint registries: a review.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Cumulative risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty in registries internationally: systematic review and meta-analysis of selected hip stems and cups.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- CORR Insights®: What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Implant Revision Risk to 5 Years From a State-wide Arthroplasty Registry in Michigan.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Long-term survivorship and results in lower limb arthroplasty: a registry-based comparison study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Developmental dysplasia of the hip is common in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under 50 years of age.SICOT-J · 2023Article
- External validation of the Tyrolean hip arthroplasty registry.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2022Article
- 2020 international practice patterns in adult joint reconstruction surgery: a survey of members of the International Society of Orthopaedic Centers.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2021Article
- The rise of registry-based research: a bibliometric analysis.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Review
- 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
- Article
- Early Benchmarking Total Hip Arthroplasty Implants Using Data from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI).Orthopedic research and reviews · 2021Article
- Article
- Summary of knee implant one, three, five, and 10-year revision risk reported by national and regional arthroplasty registries: a valuable source of evidence for clinical decision-making.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
- Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
- Has the Use of Fixation Techniques in THA Changed in This Decade? The Uncemented Paradox Revisited.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Primary total hip arthroplasty: registry data for fixation methods and bearing options at a minimum of 10 years.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewNational and regional arthroplasty registries have proliferated since the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register was started in 1975. Registry reports typically present implant-specific estimates of revision risk and patient- and technique-related factors that can inform clinical decision-making about implants and techniques. However, annual registry reports are long and it is difficult for clinicians to extract comparable revision risk data. Since implants may appear in multiple registry reports, it is even more difficult to gather relevant data for clinical decision-making about implant selection. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe arthroplasty registry concepts, international registries around the world, US registries, and provide a parsimonious summary of total hip arthroplasty (THA) implant revision risk reports across registries. RECENT
findingsRevision risk data for conventional stem/cup combinations reported by the Australian, R.I.P.O. (Italian), Finnish, and Danish registries are summarized here. These registries were selected because they presented 10-year data on revision risk by stem/cup combination. Four tables of revision risk are presented based on fixation: cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid. Review of these tables show there is wide variation in revision risk across conventional THA implants. It also demonstrates that some cemented implants have better 10-year risk than the best uncemented implants. Many arthroplasty registries prepare annual reports that include revision risk data for implants and they are posted on the registry websites. Arthroplasty surgeons should stay current with these registry reports on implant performance and potential outliers and keep them in mind when making implant decisions.
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.