ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Revision total hip arthroplasty is associated with poorer clinically meaningful improvements and patient satisfaction compared to primary total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Highly porous 3-D printed tritanium acetabular shell for aseptic revision total hip : Arthroplasty: minimum 2-year prospective follow up of 101 implants.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic area deprivation index is not associated with postoperative complications following revision total hip and knee joint arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Propensity score-matched comparison of physical activity and quality of life between revision total hip arthroplasty and primary total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Preoperative mental distress is associated with poorer physical improvements after revision total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Monobloc press-fit cups with large-diameter bearings are safe in revision total hip arthroplasty.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare PROM improvements and satisfaction rates between revision (rTHA) and primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA).
methods84 rTHAs were propensity-score matched to 168 pTHAs using patient demographics and preoperative PROMs. Multiple regression was used to evaluate differences in PROMs, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) attainment and patient satisfaction.
resultsCompared to pTHA patients, rTHA patients had poorer MCID attainment for OHS, WOMAC and SF-36 PCS and lower satisfaction rates at 2-years postoperatively (p < 0.05).
conclusionPatients undergoing rTHA are likely to have poorer outcomes and should be appropriately counselled to better manage their preoperative expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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.