Observational studyThe bone & joint journal2017
Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.
Observational study in The bone & joint journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking preservation: The case for timely hip arthroplasty in young adult hip pathology.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2026Review
- The Indian Joint Registry: Building Trust, Safety, and Excellence in Indian Orthopedics.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Long-term Follow-up on Revisions of a Recalled Large Head Metal-on-metal Hip Prosthesis: A Single Surgeon Series.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2022Article
- Role of Hip Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Avascular Necrosis of the Hip: A Systematic Review.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Review
- Tantalum Versus Titanium Acetabular Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Current Concept and a Review of the Current Literature.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Review
- Metal on metal hip arthroplasty surveillance at a tertiary centre: design, patients' adherence, and cost analysis.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2019Article
- Revisions of Modular Metal-on-metal THA Have a High Risk of Early Complications.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris.Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments.Bone & joint research · 2018Article
- The risk of cardiac failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.The bone & joint journal · 2018Article
- Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.Bone & joint research · 2017Article
- Surgical management of hip prosthetic failure in metallosis: A case series and literature review.Journal of orthopaedicsReview
- Wear Rates of XLPE Nearly 50% Lower Than Previously Thought After Adjusting for Initial Creep: An RCT Comparing 4 Bearing Combinations.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Revision total hip arthroplasty for metal-on-metal failure.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and traumaReview
- Perioperative factors associated with increased length of stay after revision of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling.
resultsIntra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%). The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per kg/m
conclusionThe short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified by the surgeon, suggesting that rates of failure following ARMD revision may be reduced further. Cite this article:
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.