Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35638602›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2022

Explant analysis and implant registries are both needed to further improve patient safety.

M M Morlock, E Gomez-Barrena, D C Wirtz, A Hart, J P Kretzer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

M M MorlockInstitute of Biomechanics, TUHH Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5330-2454
E Gomez-BarrenaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
D C WirtzDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
A HartLondon Implant Retrieval Centre, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
J P KretzerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the early days of total joint replacement, implant fracture, material problems and wear presented major problems for the long-term success of the operation. Today, failures directly related to the implant comprise only 2-3% of the reasons for revision surgeries, which is a result of the material and design improvements in combination with the standardization of pre-clinical testing methods and the post-market surveillance required by the legal regulation. Arthroplasty registers are very effective tools to document the long-term clinical performance of implants and implantation techniques such as fixation methods in combination with patient characteristics. Revisions due to implant failure are initially not reflected by the registries due to their small number. Explant analysis including patient, clinical and imaging documentation is crucial to identify failure mechanisms early enough to prevent massive failures detectable in the registries. In the past, early reaction was not always successful, since explant analysis studies have either been performed late or the results did not trigger preventive measures until clinical failures affected a substantial number of patients. The identification of implant-related problems is only possible if all failures are reported and related to the number of implantations. A system that analyses all explants from revisions attributed to implant failure is mandatory to reduce failures, allowing improvement of risk assessment in the regulatory process.

Indexed as

explant analysisimplant failurerisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID35638602
PMCPMC9257736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.