ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2020
The etiology of revision total hip arthroplasty: current trends in a retrospective survey of 3450 cases.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing and Frequency of Adverse Events Within 90 Days of Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term survival and complication rate of cementless prosthetic stems in primary total hip arthroplasty categorized by types according to Mont classification: a regional registry-based study on 53,626 implants.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Impact of three-dimensional printed planning in Paprosky III acetabular defects: a case-control and cost-comparison analysis.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing an Acetabular Reinforcement Ring with a Metal Augment: A Minimum Eight-Year Follow-Up Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Synovial fluid neutrophil extracellular traps could improve the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection.Bone & joint research · 2023Article
- A Scoping Review of Total Hip Arthroplasty Survival and Reoperation Rates in Patients of 55 Years or Younger: Health Services Implications for Revision Surgeries.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Development of an innovativeFrontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Survivorship of the retained femoral component after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Comparison of the success rate after debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for periprosthetic joint infection among patients with or without a sinus tract.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Factors Affecting Periprosthetic Bone Loss after Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2021Review
- Titanium Nanoparticles Enhance Production and Suppress Stabilin-1-Mediated Clearance of GDF-15 in Human Primary Macrophages.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver the last years, the design of implants, the surgical approaches, and diagnostic tools changed in primary and revision of total hip arthroplasty. A knowledge of the different causes for revision after total hip arthroplasty is essential to avoid complications and failures. The purpose of this study was to determine trends of the etiology of implant failures over the last years by analyzing indications of revision hip arthroplasty.
methodsAll the patients who performed revision hip arthroplasties in our institution between 2001 and 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, the indication for revision surgery as well as the procedure were assessed. Descriptive statistical analyses and association analyses were performed.
resultsWithin our collective of 3450 revision hip arthroplasties, a total of 20 different indications were identified and categorized. Overall, 80.8% of the revisions were categorized as aseptic, 19.2% as septic implant failures. Some recently debated diagnoses like low-grade infection showed a high increase in incidence, whereas classic failure mechanisms like polyethylene wear showed a decrease over the time. In addition, the data revealed that cup loosening caused more revision surgeries than stem loosening.
conclusionThis study successfully updated the current knowledge of different failure mechanisms in revision hip arthroplasties. The data proved that cup loosening was the most common failure mechanism in older patients, while in young patients, septic complications showed a high incidence. Probably, due to improved diagnostic tools, the percentage of infection in revision hip arthroplasty increased over the years.
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.