ArticleKnee surgery & related research2023
Impact of time to revision total knee arthroplasty on outcomes following aseptic failure.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 2023. 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.
- Airplane Test: An Intraoperative Assessment for Flexion Contracture in Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Failure to Eradicate Infection after Single Arthroscopic Debridement in Septic Arthritis of a Native Knee Joint.Yonsei medical journal · 2025Article
- Big data analysis reveals significant increases in complications, costs, and hospital stay in revision total knee arthroplasty compared to primary TKA.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared.
results470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions.
conclusionsAseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective observational analysis.
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.