ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Periprocedural clinical outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty: a multi-centric comparison of current strategies based on the NSQIP.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors related to deep vein thrombosis as a complication of post-total hip arthroplasty patients: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- Total hip arthroplasty results in better functional outcomes compared to hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of sepsis in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA).Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Observational
- 30-day Mortality Following Revision of Hip Arthroplasty, A Cohort Study Based on the Swedish Perioperative Registry 2017-2022.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent projections suggest a substantial rise in demand for revision total hip arthroplasties, emphasizing the need for optimized perioperative care. Various revision techniques, such as isolated acetabular or femoral component revisions and total replacements, have garnered attention. Further research is needed to establish the most effective strategies for improving clinical outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective analysis utilized data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File from 2016 to 2021. The study aimed to compare clinical characteristics and 30-day outcomes among patients undergoing combined acetabular and femoral (A + F) revision, acetabulum-only (A) revision, and femoral side-only (F) revision surgeries.
resultsThe analysis of 18,888 patients revealed crucial differences in preoperative and postoperative outcomes among various revision strategies. Specifically, there were notable variations in patient demographics, comorbidities, and emergency procedures. Postoperative data showed distinct rates of mortality, complications, and readmissions across the groups. Notably, femoral component revisions were associated with increased risks of mortality, transfusion, and urinary tract infections, underscoring the need for careful evaluation and consideration when opting for this revision approach.
conclusionThe study's significance lies in its extensive patient cohort and multifaceted evaluation of revision strategies. Although consensus is lacking on single-component revisions, targeting the acetabulum component appears relatively safer. Continued research and individualized evaluations are crucial for refining revision strategies and optimizing outcomes in THA revisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39249138What 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.