Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31020033›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty today2019

Early outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with a modern modular femoral revision stem in 65 consecutive cases.

Christopher E Pelt, Marissa L Stagg, Christin Van Dine, Mike B Anderson, Christopher L Peters, Jeremy M Gililland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty today, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christopher E PeltThe University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics, Adult Reconstruction Division, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Marissa L StaggThe University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics, Adult Reconstruction Division, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Christin Van DineThe University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics, Adult Reconstruction Division, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Mike B AndersonThe University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics, Adult Reconstruction Division, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Christopher L PetersThe University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics, Adult Reconstruction Division, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Jeremy M GilillandThe University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics, Adult Reconstruction Division, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001067 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DERE, WILLARD H., HESS, RACHEL · 2013 to 2017
$19.8M
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH CENTER FOR CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE-UL1: BPCAUL1RR025764 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI MCCLAIN, DONALD A. · 2008 to 2011
$19.4M
University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science-UL1UL1TR000105 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI MCCLAIN, DONALD A. · 2012 to 2013
$5.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000105NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001067NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025764
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the early outcomes, including all-cause revisions, aseptic revisions, and reoperations after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a single modern modular femoral stem design.

methodsA retrospective cohort study on a consecutive series of 62 patients (65 hips) who underwent revision THA with a modern modular femoral stem system, between January 2011 and October 2015, at a single academic medical center was performed. A cumulative incidence competing risk model was used to evaluate the cumulative incidence of failure with death as the competing risk.

resultsThe cumulative incidence rate of all-cause revision THA was 14.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-24%) at 2 years when accounting for the competing risk of death. The rate of aseptic revisions was 6.8% (95% CI, 0.1%-13%), and the rate of all-cause reoperations was 21.6% (95% CI, 11%-31%). Ten THA cases (15%) underwent re-revision THA for any reason: five for infection and five for aseptic failures. The mean time to re-revision was 1 year (range, 0.04-5.34). Patients with a preoperative Mallory classification of 3 or more were at greater risk for reoperation (sub-hazard rate, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.54-9.53;

conclusionsAlthough the high incidence of reoperation illustrates the complexity of the revision THA population, particularly related to infection and joint instability, the relatively low rate of aseptic failures, minimal radiographic subsidence, and the lack of modular junctional failures suggest that the use of this modular revision THA system may provide adequate fixation and could be considered as a viable treatment option in the setting of revision THA.

Indexed as

Aseptic looseningCompeting risks survivalFemoral bone lossModular femoral implantsRevision total hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID31020033
PMCPMC6470366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.