ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Survivorship of the retained femoral component after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Fate of revision total ankle arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 999 cases.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of retaining the femoral stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate re-revision rates of retained femoral components after revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: Papers were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with predetermined keywords from January 2000 to January 2022. The studies reporting the re-revision rates of retained stems after revision THA were identified. Pooled rates of re-revision for any reason and aseptic loosening were calculated using a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model based on the results of heterogeneity assessment after the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation. A meta-regression was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: There were 20 studies with 1,484 hips that received the isolated cup revision with the femoral component retained. The pooled re-revision rate of retained stems was 1.75% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43%-3.65%]. The re-revision rate of retained stems due to aseptic loosening was 0.62% (95% CI, 0.06%-1.55%). The meta-regression showed that the fixation type (cemented or cementless) was related to the re-revision rate for any reason and the re-revision rate for aseptic loosening. Conclusion: Based on the existing evidence, the isolated cup revision with a stable stem
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.