Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33988078›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2021

Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Maartje Belt, Gerjon Hannink, José Smolders, Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren, Berend W Schreurs, Katrijn Smulders

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Outcomes in revision total knee arthroplasty (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maartje BeltResearch Department, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen.
Gerjon HanninkDepartment of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen.
José SmoldersDepartment of Orthopedics, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen.
Anneke Spekenbrink-SpoorenDutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten), 's-Hertogenbosch.
Berend W SchreursDutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten), 's-Hertogenbosch.
Katrijn SmuldersResearch Department, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen.
Sint Maartenskliniek · NLDutch Heart Registry · NLUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - From previous studies, we know that clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) differ among reasons for revision. Whether the prevalence of repeat rTKAs is different depending on the reason for index rTKA is unclear. Therefore, we (1) compared the repeat revision rates between the different reasons for index rTKA, and (2) evaluated whether the reason for repeat rTKA was the same as the reason for the index revision.Patients and methods - Patients (n = 8,978) who underwent an index rTKA between 2010 and 2018 as registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included. Reasons for revision, as reported by the surgeon, were categorized as: infection, loosening, malposition, instability, stiffness, patellar problems, and other. Competing risk analyses were performed to determine the cumulative repeat revision rates after an index rTKA for each reason for revision.Results - Overall, the cumulative repeat revision rate was 19% within 8 years after index rTKA. Patients revised for infection had the highest cumulative repeat revision rate (28%, 95% CI 25-32) within 8 years after index rTKA. The recurrence of the reason was more common than other reasons after index rTKA for infection (18%), instability (8%), stiffness (7%), and loosening (5%).Interpretation - Poorest outcomes were found for rTKA for infection: over 1 out of 4 infection rTKAs required another surgical intervention, mostly due to infection. Recurrence of other reasons for revision (instability, stiffness, and loosening) was also considerable. Our findings also emphasize the importance of a clear diagnosis before doing rTKA to avert second revision surgeries.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisAgedDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis FailureReoperation

Identifiers

PMID33988078
PMCPMC8519540
OpenAlexW3162470675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.