ReviewEFORT open reviews2021
Low evidence for implementation of well-documented implants regarding risk of early revision: a systematic review on total hip arthroplasty.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Study of a Novel Explosively Hardened Pure Titanium Alloy for Medical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When introducing an implant, surgeons are subjected to steep learning curves, which may lead to a heightened revision rate. Stepwise introduction revolutionized implant introduction but lacks a last step.No guidelines exist for the introduction of a well-documented implant not previously used in a department. This is problematic according to the European Union's legislated tendering process, potentially leading to increased revisions. In this systematic review, the introduction of a well-documented total hip arthroplasty implant to experienced surgeons is explored amid concerns of higher revision rate.Literature search strategies were deployed in the Embase and Medline databases, revealing a total of 14,612 articles. Using the Covidence software (Cochrane, London), two reviewers screened articles for inclusion.No articles were found that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. A post hoc analysis retrieved two national register-based studies only missing information about the surgeon's knowledge of the introduced implant. None of the introduced implants decreased the revision rate and around 30% of the introduced implants were associated with a higher revision rate.The review showed that no data exist about revision rates when introducing well-documented implants. In continuation thereof, the introduction of well-documented implants might also be associated with increased revision rates, as has been shown for total knee arthroplasty. We therefore suggest that special attention should be focused on changes of implants in departments, which can be achieved by way of specific registration in national registers. 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.