ArticleArthroplasty today2024
The Epidemiology of the Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States From 2016 to 2022.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mid-Term Outcomes of a Next-Generation Modular Acetabular System in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Collared Femoral Stems Have Lower Risk of Postoperative PPFs After THA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
- The Effect of Implant Size on Fretting Currents of Acetabular Cup-Liner Tapers During in Vitro Cyclic Loading.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025Article
- Computer-assisted total hip arthroplasty reduces early complications based on Japanese nationwide medical claims data.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Long-term implant survival, functional, and radiological assessment of cemented stem in revision hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is projected to reach 572,000 cases annually by 2030 in the United States. This may be attributed to the successes of primary THAs combined with an aging population, patients desire to remain active, and expanded indications for younger patients. Given the evolving nature of revision THAs, an epidemiological analysis of (1) etiologies; (2) demographics, including age and region; and (3) lengths of stay (LOSs) may minimize the gap between appropriate understanding and effective intervention. Methods: From 2016 to 2022, a national, all-payer database was queried. Incidences and indications were analyzed for a total of 102,476 patients who had revision THA procedures. Patients were stratified according to etiology of failure, age, US census region, primary payor class, and mean LOS. Results: The most common etiologies for revision THA procedures were dislocation (16.7%) and infection (12.7%), followed by periprosthetic fracture (6.9%). The largest age group was 65-74 years (30.9%), followed by >75 years (28.6%), then 55-64 (26.5%). The South had the largest total procedure cohort (36.9%), followed by the Midwest (27.5%), then the Northeast (19.7%), and the West (15.9%). The mean LOS was 4.10 days (range, 1.0-20.0). Conclusions: Dislocation and infection remain leading indications for revision THA. These findings can properly guide surgeons toward appropriate management as well as toward active steps to minimizing these outcomes.
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.