Observational studyMusculoskeletal care2021
Pilot study: Is a long-term follow-up service beneficial for patients undergoing revision hip replacement surgery?
Observational study in Musculoskeletal care, 2021. 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.
- A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty.The bone & joint journal · 2022Observational
- Pilot study: Is a long-term follow-up service beneficial for patients undergoing revision hip replacement surgery?Musculoskeletal care · 2021Observational
- Value of long-term systematic follow-up for complication detection after hip and knee arthroplasty: a 17-year retrospective cohort study.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
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
Abstract
purposeTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is highly successful but some patients will require later revision surgery. This pilot study evaluates the effects of long-term follow-up for patients undergoing revision hip replacement.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing aseptic revision of THA were recruited from a large orthopaedic unit to a single centre, observational study. Primary outcomes were changes in patient-reported scores from pre-revision to 12 months post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were costs during hospital stay up to 6 months post-revision. Participants were retrospectively allocated to two groups-those with regular orthopaedic review prior to revision (Planned revision) or those without (Unplanned revision).
results52 patients were recruited, 7 were unrevised, one incomplete baseline questionnaires. There were 25 planned and 19 unplanned revisions with no significant differences between groups at baseline. At 12 months, 34 complete data sets were available for analysis, 17 in each group. Change scores were analysed with Mann-Whitney U test; none reached statistical significance. There was a significant difference for length of stay: Planned group 5 days (2-22), Unplanned 11 days (3-86) (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.023). No significant differences found for theatre time or component costs. Resource costs post-revision surgery are presented.
conclusionThis pilot study indicates that some change in methods would be required for future work. The results show that there may be some financial benefit from providing long-term follow-up of THA but a larger study is needed to explore these findings and to discuss the impact on recommended guidelines.
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.