ReviewEFORT open reviews2020
Summary of knee implant one, three, five, and 10-year revision risk reported by national and regional arthroplasty registries: a valuable source of evidence for clinical decision-making.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Micropatterning and Nanodropletting of Titanium by Shifted Surface Laser Texturing Significantly Enhances In Vitro Osteogenesis of Healthy and Osteoporotic Mesenchymal Stromal Cells.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Hospital variation in revision rates after primary knee arthroplasty was not explained by patient selection: baseline data from 1452 patients in the Danish prospective multicenter cohort study, SPARK.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Observational
- Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Implant Revision Risk to 5 Years From a State-wide Arthroplasty Registry in Michigan.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
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
Optimal implant selection is a major component of high-quality arthroplasty care, and revision risk is an important parameter characterizing knee arthroplasty implant clinical performance.National and regional arthroplasty registries are essential sources of revision risk data, but these data are often difficult to find because they are buried within extensive annual reports. Summarizing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant revision risks as presented in registry reports can maximize the usefulness of registry data for orthopaedic surgeons.The findings summarize the revision risk data found in national arthroplasty reports from the Australian, Danish, Finnish, and the England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man registries, and in regional arthroplasty reports from the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italty), and the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) registries.The six supplemental summary tables present revision risk data for TKA implants by cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and unreported fixation types. Additional summary tables are presented for revision risk of unicondylar (UKA) and patellofemoral joint (PFJ) revisions. Within TKA fixation categories, revision risks at 10 years ranged from 2.4% to 35.7% (cemented), 2.8% to 25.0% (uncemented), 2.0% to 9.2% (hybrid), and 0.0% to 39.7% (unreported). Unicondylar 10-year revision risk ranged from 4.9% to 17.2%. Patellofemoral joint 10-year revision risk ranged from 15.2% to 21.7%.There is substantial variation in one, three, five, and 10-year revision risk across implants, which suggests surgeons should choose implants carefully. 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.