Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34407779›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021

Cost of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Charles Okafor, Brent Hodgkinson, Son Nghiem, Christopher Vertullo, Joshua Byrnes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Mid-term performance of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Trends and Themes in the Study of Value in Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Charles OkaforCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia. charles.okafor@griffithuni.edu.au.
Brent HodgkinsonCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
Son NghiemCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
Christopher VertulloMenzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Joshua ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing incidence of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to an increase in both the incidence and the cost burden of revision TKA procedures. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost of revision TKA for septic and aseptic causes and to identify the major cost components contributing to the cost burden.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias and cost transparency within the studies were conducted by two independent reviewers, after which the cost data were analysed narratively for 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision; 2-stage septic revision with re-revision; and aseptic revision with and without re-revision, respectively. The major cost components identified in the respective studies were also reported.

resultsThe direct medical cost from the healthcare provider perspective for high-income countries for 2-stage septic revision with re-revision ranged from US$66,629 to US$81,938, which can be about 2.5 times the cost of 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision, (range: US$24,027 - US$38,109), which can be about double the cost of aseptic revision without re-revision (range: US$13,910 - US$29,213). The major cost components were the perioperative cost (33%), prosthesis cost (28%), and hospital ward stay cost (22%).

conclusionsSeptic TKA revision with re-revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) increases the cost burden of revision TKA by 4 times when compared to aseptic single-stage revision and by 2.5 times when compared to septic TKA revision that does not undergo re-revision. Cost reductions can be achieved by reducing the number of primary TKA that develop PJI, avoidance of re-revisions for PJI, and reduction in the length of stay after revision.

trial registrationPROSPERO; CRD42020171988 .

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansLength of StayReoperationRetrospective StudiesCostEconomic burdenKneeRevisionSystematic reviewTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34407779
PMCPMC8371784

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.