ArticleActa orthopaedica2022
Prosthesis survival after revision knee arthroplasty for "pain without loosening" versus "aseptic loosening": a Danish nationwide study.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2022. 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.
- Isolated Zone 2 and Zone 3 Cementless Tibial Fixation Shows Early Promise in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- The downstream risk of multiple revisions following a prior TKA revision due to infection is higher compared to an aseptic TKA revision: A nationwide register study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Incidence and survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties in Denmark 1998-2021: a nationwide register-based study.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Observational
- The impact of comorbidity status on knee function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty: a population-based cohort study.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Aseptic midterm survival rates between different cemented tibial stem designs in hinged total knee arthroplasty: a 6-year evaluation from the German Arthroplasty Registry.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
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
Background and purpose - Patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication "pain without loosening" may have a higher risk of re-revisions than patients revised for other indications. The primary aim of this study was to compare the survival of knee arthroplasties revised for "pain without loosening" compared with "aseptic loosening." The second was to investigate the prosthesis survival rates in 3 surgical subgroups (total knee arthroplasty (TKA)-TKA; partial revision (revision of tibial or femoral component); unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-TKA) and to compare the prosthesis survival rates for 1997-2009 and 2010-2018. Patients and methods - 4,299 revisions were identified in the period 1997-2018 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 1,111 (26%) were performed due to "pain without loosening" without any other indications, 674 (16%) due to "pain without loosening" combined with other indications, and 2,514 (59%) due to "aseptic loosening". Survival analysis was performed by a Cox multivariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were presented. Results - The cumulated proportions of re-revision after 2, 5, and 20 years were 12% (95% CI 10-14), 18% (CI 16-20), and 23% (CI 20-25) for "pain without loosening" versus 11% (CI 9.3-12), 16% (CI 14-17), and 19% (CI 18-21) for "aseptic loosening." There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 indications in repeated analyses for each of the surgical subgroups. The hazard ratio for re-revision comparing "pain without loosening" with "aseptic loosening" was 1.03 (CI 0.87-1.2). The 8-year risk of re-revision for "pain without loosening" was 22% (CI 19-26) versus 22% (CI 20-25) for "aseptic loosening" in the period from 1997-2009, and 18% (CI 15-22) versus 14% (CI 13-16) in the period from 2010-2018. Interpretation - The risk of re-revision was similar for patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication "pain without loosening" compared with "aseptic loosening." However, we observed a slight improvement of prosthesis survival rates after revisions for both indications from 1997-2009 to 2010-2018. We cannot recommend for or against revision in cases with "pain without loosening" based on these data alone.
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.