ArticleCureus2021
Risk Factors for Revision After Early and Delayed Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation. An Analysis of Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite relatively low incidence, dislocation remains one of the main reasons for total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision. It is a devastating complication for a patient and a surgeon, and has high burden on the healthcare system. The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the risk factors for revision after early and delayed THA dislocations.
methodsSome 3403 THA through posterior approach for primary osteoarthritis were retrospectively studied in the Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register from 2011 to 2018. Three months after THA was the splitting time between the first event of early and delayed dislocations. Revision was set as outcome measure. Gender, affected side, number of dislocations, femoral head and neck size, and prosthesis fixation type were tested as risk factors for revision after early and delayed THA dislocations.
resultsDislocation occurred in 108 patients (3.2%), and 26 cases (0.8%) required revision. Men had statistically significant higher risk for revision due to early dislocation [hazard ratio (HR) 4.7; 1.3-17.7 confidence interval (CI)] and considerably lower risk for revision due to delayed dislocation (HR 0.5; 0.1-1.7 CI). The left side THA had twice the risk as compared to the right in the early settings (HR 2.1; 0.6-6.9 CI) which equalized after three months (HR 1.1; 0.4-3.1 CI). Some 32 mm femoral head had significantly lower risk in the early group as compared to 28 mm head (HR 0.3; 0.1-0.5 CI). Short head was associated with increased risk for revision after early dislocation, although, not statistically significant. Prosthesis fixation type was not a risk factor for revision surgery neither after early nor after delayed dislocation.
conclusionThe unique finding of gender separation was found -- men tend for revision after early dislocation and women after delayed dislocation. In early stage, additional precautions should be considered when 28 mm short metal heads are used.
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.