ReviewEFORT open reviews2022
Explant analysis and implant registries are both needed to further improve patient safety.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse local tissue reactions in arthroplasty: opportunities and challenges for a common terminology across scientific, clinical and regulatory fields.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Diverse Views and Practices on the Handling of Explanted Hardware Highlights the Need for Standardized Management.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Implant Failure in Orthopaedics: Law Does Not Hold the Surgeon Accountable.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.