ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2020
Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Indian Experience.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty using Modified Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score: A Prospective Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Does the presence of a lipped highly crosslinked polyethylene liner affect the survival of total hip arthroplasty implants? : a registry-based retrospective cohort study.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Monoblock or modular? Impact of stem design and conicity angle on long-term implant survival in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 20-year follow-up registry study on 3647 implants.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- "Cup-in-Cup Technique" in the Management of Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty: Early to Midterm Results.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Hypersensitivity and lymphocyte activation after total hip arthroplasty.Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
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
backgroundWith increasing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), there has been a substantial increase in revision total hip replacement (RTHR) surgeries. RTHR are complex joint reconstruction surgeries involving significant cost, expertise and infrastructure. With its significant socioeconomic impact, we need to keep a close watch on the epidemiological trends of these procedures.
methodsWe prospectively studied the first-time RTHR performed at our institution for a 7-year period (2011-2017). We looked at patient demographics, the workload of RTHR and its etiology. We reviewed the microbiological profiles of septic revisions.
resultsOf the 1244 THR procedures performed, 260 (21%) were first-time revisions. The predominant cause of revisions was a prosthetic infection (38%) followed by aseptic loosening (33%), instability (15%), peri-prosthetic fracture (11%) and implant breakage (3%). In the aseptic loosening group, 55% of cases had primary cemented implant, 44% had only stem loosening, 31% had cup loosening and 25% had both cup and stem loosening. In the early, midterm, and late-failure groups, prosthetic infection remained the main cause of failure. In 60% of the septic revisions, the offending organisms could not be identified and of those identified most (77%) were gram negative.
conclusionIn our study, the RTHR burden was 21%, which is similar to historic revision data from the west (1998-2001) and twice as compared to recent trends from the west (9-11%). Unlike western data, which show aseptic loosening (30-60%) as the predominant cause of hip revisions, in our study infection was the number one cause (38%).
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.