ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Under-reporting by surgical pathologists in tissue removed during revision surgery for metal-on-metal arthroplasties.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) have been reported for metal-on-metal implants (MoM) requiring early revision surgery, no study has looked at the accuracy of surgical pathologists in diagnosing ALTR. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of reporting adverse local tissue reactions in tissue samples following revision surgery from metal-on-metal implants. The authors reviewed histology glass slides as well as the original pathology reports of tissue processed in revision arthroplasties in 23 cases. These samples were microscopically analyzed for tissue necrosis and cystic degeneration, the presence of metal particles, corrosion byproducts, membrane formation, histiocytic cells, lymphocytic cells, and vascular pathology. The authors' findings were then compared to their corresponding original pathology reports. The authors found consistent under-reporting of the tissue findings. Most importantly, 18 samples showed evidence of metal present compared to 2 samples on original pathology reporting. The authors found that 15 samples showed evidence of pathological membranous tissue compared to just 6 on original pathology reporting. While just 3 of the original pathology reports indicated the presence of areas of predominantly lymphocytic inflammatory cells, the authors found 13 examples of such areas. Although ALTR reactions have been described as a sequala of failed MoM, the authors' data suggest that ALTR may occur more frequently than previously described. Under-reported findings of ALTR deprive both the patient and orthopaedic surgeon of important information that can help guide further follow-up.
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.