ArticleBMJ open2019
Understanding the uptake of new hip replacement implants in the UK: a cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPrimary: describe uptake of new implant components (femoral stem or acetabular cup/shell) for total hip replacements (THRs) in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). Secondary: compare the characteristics of: (a) surgeons and (b) patients who used/received new rather than established components.
designCohort of 618 393 primary THRs performed for osteoarthritis (±other indications) by 4979 surgeons between 2008 and 2017 in England and Wales from the NJR. We described the uptake of new (first recorded use >2008, used within 5 years) stems/cups, and variation in uptake by surgeons (primary objectives). We explored surgeon-level and patient-level factors associated with use/receipt of new components with logistic regression models (secondary objectives). OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes: total number of new cups/stems, proportion of operations using new versus established components. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: odds of: (a) a surgeon using a new cup/stem in a calendar-year, (b) a patient receiving a new rather than established cup/stem.
resultsSixty-eight new cups and 72 new stems were used in 47 606 primary THRs (7.7%) by 2005 surgeons (40.3%) 2008-2017. Surgeons used a median of one new stem and cup (25%-75%=1-2 both, max=10 cups, max=8 stems). Surgeons performed a median total of 22 THRs (25%-75%=5-124, range=1-3938) in the period 2008-2017. Surgeons used new stems in a median of 5.0% (25%-75%=1.3%-16.1%) and new cups in a median of 9.4% (25%-75%=2.8%-26.7%) of their THRs. Patients aged <55 years old versus those 55-80 had higher odds of receiving a new rather than established stem (OR=1.83, 95% CI=1.73-1.93) and cup (OR=1.31, 95% CI=1.25-1.37). Women had lower odds of receiving a new stem (OR=0.87, 95% CI=0.84-0.90), higher odds of receiving a new cup (OR=1.06, 95% CI=1.03-1.09).
conclusionsLarge numbers of new THR components have been introduced in the NJR since 2008. 40% of surgeons have tried new components, with wide variation in how many types and frequency they have been used.
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.