ArticleBMC surgery2024
Systematisation of the causes that required revision hip replacement, methods of their solution, treatment results in Ukraine.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study is to organise data on complications following total hip replacement (THA) over a span of 10 years, specifically focussing on cases that necessitated revision endoprosthetic surgeries. The objective is to create a recommendation for an All-Ukrainian registry of initial and repeated hip arthroplasty (HA) and standardise the terminology used to define "revision of total hip replacement surgery".
methodsThe retrospective analysis examined 236 instances of revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) performed at the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics Centre between January 2005 and December 2021. The primary factors for revision were identified through an analysis of the patient's medical records, laboratory results, visual inspection, and the state of the previously implanted prosthesis. Demographic information, primary and revision HA dates, diagnoses, and causes of complications were recorded. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistica package (StatSoft), version 12.6 (2015), with a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsOut of the 364 patients who were diagnosed with complications, 236 of them (55.17%) needed a procedure called 1rTHA. Among these cases, 152 (41.76%) were specifically diagnosed with aseptic component instability. Significant factors for mechanical loosening were a high body mass index (BMI ≥ 30) and older age, with respective t-values of 2.08 (p = 0.004) and 2.59 (p = 0.045). Osteoporosis significantly contributed to aseptic loosening and fractures around the implant. The occurrence of infectious complications was frequently linked to chronic infectious diseases (t = 3.37, p = 0.001). The overall percentage of need for 2rTHA was 27.22% (43 cases), with one case of infectious lesion following the revision.
conclusionsThe study emphasises the urgent requirement for standardised terminology and a comprehensive registry for hip arthroplasty procedures. Primary results indicate that cement-free fixation is more effective than cement-based fixation for revision in patients with aseptic instability and that two-stage arthroplasty is effective for treating infectious inflammation. Furthermore, the most effective treatment for femoral fractures with periprosthetic involvement was determined to be open repositioning and osteosynthesis with metal retainers. The aforementioned observations emphasise the need to create a comprehensive registry across Ukraine to support patient care, enable evidence-based practices, and enhance the overall effectiveness of hip arthroplasty operations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.