ArticleActa orthopaedica2022
Impact of patient and prosthesis characteristics on common reasons for total knee replacement revision: a registry study of 36,626 revision cases from Australia, Sweden, and USA.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Trends on Perioperative Complications of Knee Replacement: A Bibliometric Analysis.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Review
- Disparities in Revision Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review of Racial, Sex-Based, and Geographic Domains.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Factors associated with arthrofibrosis-related revision following 14,325 total or unicompartmental knee arthro-plasties: an analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Observational
- Risk factors for early septic failure after two-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessment of human gait after total knee arthroplasty by dynamic time warping algorithm.Healthcare technology letters · 2023Article
- Article
- No Significant Differences in Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes between PCL Retained or Sacrificed Kinematic Aligned Medial Pivot Total Knee Arthroplasty in Varus Knee.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Influence of different fixation modes on biomechanical conduction of 3D printed prostheses for treating critical diaphyseal defects of lower limbs: A finite element study.Frontiers in surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTotal knee replacement (TKR) studies usually analyze all-cause revision when considering relationships with patient and prosthesis factors. We studied how these factors impact different revision diagnoses. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe used data from 2003 to 2019 of TKR for osteoarthritis from the arthroplasty registries of Sweden, Australia, and Kaiser Permanente, USA to study patient and prosthesis characteristics for specific revision diagnoses. There were 1,072,924 primary TKR included and 36,626 were revised. Factors studied included age, sex, prosthesis constraint, fixation method, bearing mobility, polyethylene type, and patellar component use. Revision diagnoses were arthrofibrosis, fracture, infection, instability, loosening, pain, patellar reasons, and wear. Odds ratios (ORs) for revision were estimated and summary effects were calculated using a meta-analytic approach.
resultsWe found between-registry consistency in 15 factor/reason analyses. Risk factors for revision for arthrofibrosis were age < 65 years (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4-2.7) and mobile bearing designs (MB) (OR 1.7; CI 1.1-2.5), for fracture were female sex (OR 3.2; CI 2.2-4.8), age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.9-4) and posterior stabilized prostheses (PS) (OR 2.1; CI 1.3-3.5), for infection were male sex (OR 1.9; CI 1.7-2.0) and PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.2-1.8), for instability were age < 65 years (OR 1.5; CI 1.3-1.8) and MB (OR 1.5; CI 1.1-2.2), for loosening were PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.4-1.6), MB (OR 2.2; CI 1.6-3.0) and use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (OR 2.3; CI 1.8-2.9), for patellar reasons were not resurfacing the patella (OR 13.6; CI 2.1-87.2) and MB (OR 2.0; CI 1.2-3.3) and for wear was cementless fixation (OR 4.9; CI 4.3-5.5).
interpretationPatients could be counselled regarding specific age and sex risks. Use of minimally stabilized, fixed bearing, cemented prostheses, and patellar components is encouraged to minimize revision risk.
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.