ArticleActa orthopaedica2019
Registry study on failure incidence in 1,127 revised hip implants with stem trunnion re-use after 10 years of follow-up: limited influence of an adapter sleeve.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of retaining the femoral stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Mix and match strategies in revision total hip arthroplasty: a review of techniques and outcomes.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Review
- Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Survival rates and reasons for revision of different stem designs in total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia: a regional registry study.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Little is known about the role of retained trunnions in revision hip arthroplasties, i.e., when only the femoral head is substituted. Wear (fretting corrosion) and ceramic head fractures are 2 poorly understood concerns related to use, and the role of adapter sleeves has not been defined. In this registry study we assessed the influence of sleeve interposition on re-revision rates in revision hip arthroplasties with retained stems. Confounding factors (demographics, implant-related features) and failures were also analyzed. Patients and methods - We conducted a registry study on 1,127 revised implants (retained trunnion and head exchange). In 26% of implants an adapter sleeve was interposed; in 74% no adapter sleeve was implanted. Demographic and implant-related features were investigated including a descriptive analysis of failures. Results - The mean follow-up of revised implants with and without the use of an adapter sleeve was 3.3 and 5.1 years, respectively. The implant survival without an adapter sleeve was significantly higher, 98.4% (95% CI 96.9-99.8) vs. 95.2% (CI 93.2-96.6) with an adapter sleeve at 5 years. No re-revisions due to adverse local tissue reactions or ceramic head fractures were reported. In order to overcome the different distribution of head materials and head sizes in the two cohorts, only Delta balls were investigated. Interpretation - Adapter sleeve interposition had a minor influence on the revision rates. No adverse local tissue reactions or head fractures occurred.
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.