ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Performing Revision Arthroplasty Increases Surgeon and Practice Volumes Through the Generation of Subsequent Cases: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. 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.
- Milestones.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision total knee (TKR) and hip (THR) arthroplasty surgeries are disincentivized due to unfavorable reimbursement rates, surgical times, and complication rates. Our study investigates secondary benefits of performing these surgeries by generating subsequent cases for surgeons and practices. Methods: Patients undergoing TKR and THR between April 1, 2011, and January 1, 2019, at our tertiary academic institution were analyzed. Patients were identified with Current Procedural Terminology codes for TKR and THR. We calculated a subsequent surgery rate on the same or different joint by the initial surgeon or another surgeon within the practice to determine the procedure yield after initial revision arthroplasty. Results: One thousand six hundred twenty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Six hundred forty-nine (39.9%) patients received at least one subsequent procedure on any joint by any orthopaedic surgeon in the practice. Four hundred five patients (24.9%) underwent another procedure on any joint by the same surgeon. Two hundred sixty patients (16.0%) underwent another procedure on the same joint by the same surgeon, with 109 cases (41.9%) being a planned second stage of a 2-stage revision for infection. Two hundred eighty-five patients (17.5%) underwent another procedure on a different joint by the same surgeon, with 122 of these patients (42.8%) undergoing at least one primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Conclusions: TKRs and THRs can increase surgeon and practice volumes through the generation of future cases, which are primarily the second stage of a 2-stage revision or primary joint arthroplasties on other joints.
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.