Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36008846›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2022

Evolving etiologies and rates of revision total knee arthroplasty: a 10-year institutional report.

Matthew L Brown, Pooya Javidan, Sam Early, William Bugbee

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Periprosthetic fractures of the knee.EFORT open reviews · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Osteoporosis and osteoporosis therapies as determinants of implant fixation failure in arthroplasty and spinal fusion constructs: a position statement from the Fracture Working Group of the Council of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis Foundation.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. AI classification of knee prostheses from plain radiographs and real-world applications.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

4 authors.

Matthew L BrownDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Sheridan Pavilion -3 Cooper Plaza, Suite 408, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA. brown-matthew@cooperhealth.edu.
Pooya JavidanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kaiser Permanente, El Cajon, CA, USA.
Sam EarlyShiley Center for Orthopaedic Research and Education, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, USA.
William BugbeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) performed in the United States is projected to rise significantly, with a proportionate increase in the revision burden. Understanding the mechanism of failure in primary TKA is important as etiologies continue to evolve and reasons for revision change. The purpose of this study was to determine the reason for revision TKA at our institution among early and late failures and assess if the etiology has changed over a 10-year time-period.

methodsWe identified 258 revision TKAs performed at our institution between 2005 and 2014. Reasons for revision TKA were categorized according to diagnosis. We also conducted subgroup analysis for TKA revisions performed within two years of the primary TKA (early failures) and those performed after two years (late failures). Revision TKAs were also grouped by year of primary TKA (before and after 2000) and time period in which the revision TKA was performed (2005-2009 and 2010-2014).

resultsThe most common reason for revision TKA was infection (29.3%), followed by aseptic loosening (19.7%), which together accounted for half of all revisions. Other indications for revision were instability (11.6%), osteolysis (10.4%), arthrofibrosis (8.1%), polyethylene (PE) wear (7.7%), malalignment/malposition (5.4%), patellar complication (3.1%), periprosthetic fracture (2.3%), pain (1.5%), and extensor mechanism deficiency (0.8%). Nearly half of early failures (47%) were due to infection. Osteolysis and PE wear made of a significantly higher proportion of revisions of TKAs performed prior to 2000 compared to index TKAs performed after 2000.

conclusionAt our institution, infection was the most common reason for revision TKA. Infection had a higher rate of early revisions. Proportion of TKAs revised for osteolysis and PE wear was higher for TKAs performed prior to 2000. Proportion of revision TKA for infection and instability were higher with TKAs performed after 2000.

Indexed as

EtiologyFailureRevisionTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36008846
PMCPMC9404596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.