ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2021
Factors predicting repeat revision and outcome after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: results from the New Zealand Joint Registry.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Low confidence in the cumulative evidence for the existence of a volume-outcome relationship after revision total knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes following total knee arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis versus for osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Cones and sleeves present good survival and clinical outcome in revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Pooled it
- Similar incidence and implant survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties in Norway and Denmark: a register study of the Danish and Norwegian Knee Arthroplasty registries from 1998-2021.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Observational
- Patient-Specific Lattice Implants for Segmental Femoral and Tibial Reconstruction (Part 1): Defect Patterns, Fixation Strategies and Reconstruction Options-A Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The downstream risk of multiple revisions following a prior TKA revision due to infection is higher compared to an aseptic TKA revision: A nationwide register study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Management of knee osteoarthritis in a young and active patient - the difficult 20% that take 80% of the time in a world of the Pareto principle.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Incidence and survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties in Denmark 1998-2021: a nationwide register-based study.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Observational
- Re-revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Causes, Risk Factors and Results.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2024Review
- Prosthesis survival after revision knee arthroplasty for "pain without loosening" versus "aseptic loosening": a Danish nationwide study.Acta orthopaedica · 2022Article
- The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021Article
- How long do revised and multiply revised knee replacements last? An analysis of the National Joint Registry.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2021Article
- Risk factors for aseptic loosening in complex revision total knee arthroplasty using rotating hinge implants.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe number of Revision TKAs performed continues to increase; however there is limited data on risk factors for failure. Additionally, clinical decisions regarding when and how to revise a failed TKA may be as important as the technical aspects of the procedure. The purpose of this study was to analyze factors predicting repeat revision following aseptic revision TKA.
methodsOf 85,769 primary TKAs recorded on the New Zealand National Joint Registry, 1720 patients undergoing subsequent revision for aseptic indications between January 1999 and December 2015 were identified. Re-revision was recorded in 208 patients (12.1%). The analysis included demographic characteristics, surgeon revision case volume, surgical time, surgical ownership of index TKA as independent variables using logistic and linear regression. The primary outcome measure was incidence of subsequent re-revision and Oxford Knee Scores of revised TKAs (OKS). The secondary outcome measure was the influence of component exchange in major revisions on re-revision rate.
resultsYounger patients undergoing a revision (HR 0.974) and male gender (HR 0.666) were predictors of re-revision. Elapsed time since index surgery (unstandardized coefficient 0.060) and lower ASA score (UC - 2.749) were significant predictors of OKS. Femoral component revision was a predictor of re-revision (HR 1.696) and had the lowest OKS, compared to tibial and all component revision (p = 0.003).
conclusionsRepeat revision TKA is a rare and complex procedure influenced by a number of confounding factors. Using raw registry data, younger and male patients were found to be at a higher risk of re-revision after aseptic revision TKA. A longer time between primary TKA and revision was associated with better clinical outcomes. Isolated femoral component exchange led to worse outcomes both in terms of survivorship and functional scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32279110What 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.