ArticleActa orthopaedica2022
Risk factors for revision surgery due to dislocation within 1 year after 111,711 primary total hip arthroplasties from 2005 to 2019: a study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with dislocation after total hip arthroplasties performed for nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a multicenter cohort study of 5,983 hips.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Prediction of Early Adverse Events After THA: A Comparison of Different Machine-Learning Strategies Based on 262,356 Observations From the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) Dataset.ACR open rheumatology · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeDislocation of a hip prosthesis is the 3rd most frequent cause (after loosening and infection) for hip revision in Norway. Recently there has been a shift in surgical practice including preferred head size, surgical approach, articulation, and fixation. We explored factors associated with the risk of revision due to dislocation within 1 year and analyzed the impact of changes in surgical practice. PATIENTS AND
methods111,711 cases of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were included (2005-2019) after primary THA with either 28 mm, 32 mm, or 36 mm femoral heads, or dualmobility articulations. A flexible parametric survival model was used to calculate hazard ratios for risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival rates were calculated.
resultsThere was an increased risk of revision due to dislocation with 28 mm femoral heads (HR 2.6, 95% CI 2.0-3.3) compared with 32 mm heads. Furthermore, there was a reduced risk of cemented fixation (HR 0.6, CI 0.5-0.8) and reverse hybrid (HR 0.6, CI 0.5-0.8) compared with uncemented. Also, both anterolateral (HR 0.5, CI 0.4-0.7) and lateral (HR 0.6, CI 0.5-0.7) approaches were associated with a reduced risk compared with the posterior approach. The time-period 2010-2014 had the lowest risk of revision due to dislocation. The trend during the study period was towards using larger head sizes, a posterior approach, and uncemented fixation for primary THA.
interpretationPatients with 28 mm head size, a posterior approach, or uncemented fixation had an increased risk of revision due to dislocation within 1 year after primary THA. The shift from lateral to posterior approach and more uncemented fixation was a plausible explanation for the increased risk of revision due to dislocation observed in the most recent time-period. The increased risk of revision due to dislocation was not fully compensated for by increasing femoral head size from 28 to 32 mm.
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.