ArticleActa orthopaedica2023
The extent of first-time THA revision is not associated with patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up: a study of 426 aseptic revisions.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical impact of acetabular defect severity on hip center of rotation restoration in revision total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
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
background and purposeStudies evaluating pain and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) related to type of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are sparse. Our aim was to compare pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient satisfaction among different types of aseptic rTHA at 1-year follow-up. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective study from an institutional registry with 426 primary THAs scheduled for rTHA in a fast-track setting between 2012 and 2021. Revisions were grouped by 4 types of surgery: head and/or liner exchange, cup revision, stem revision, and cup and stem revision. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0-10), physical function (HOOS-PS and HHS) and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) were registered preoperatively, at 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at the 1-year follow-up by 2 questions related to hip function and willingness to undergo the same surgery.
resultsWith a response rate of 85%, all outcomes improved in the 4 groups but there were neither statistical nor clinical differences between types of rTHA at 1-year follow-up. NRS pain during mobilization improved overall by 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3-3.1) until 1-year follow-up, both being statistically significant and clinically relevant. The improvements were mainly seen at the 3-month follow-up, with minor progress observed at 1 year. About 80% reported improved hip function and willingness to undergo the surgery again at the 1-year follow-up.
conclusionSignificant improvements in NRS pain and PROMS were found in all groups after rTHA, with no group differences at 1 year. This is relevant preoperative information for both clinicians and patients eligible for rTHA.
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.