ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
The downstream risk of multiple revisions following a prior TKA revision due to infection is higher compared to an aseptic TKA revision: A nationwide register study.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-antibiotic bone cement (gentamicin + vancomycin) in preventing and treating infections during revision knee arthroplasty in high-risk patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- The downstream risk of multiple revisions following a prior TKA revision due to infection is higher compared to an aseptic TKA revision: A nationwide register study.Journal of experimental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To estimate the downstream effect of septic first revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) on the risk of second and third revision compared with aseptic first rTKA. Methods: A register study of The Danish National Patient Registry and The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. rTKAs performed in Denmark from 1998 to 2021 were identified. We included only major revisions defined as the exchange of the tibial and/or femoral components and isolated liner exchanges or patella revisions were not included. Two-stage revisions were counted as one revision. The exposure group was defined as revisions due to any septic indication (Group 1) while the control group was revisions due to all aseptic indications (Group 2). Cox regression analysis was used to compare the groups and estimate the hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for revision. Results: We identified 1016 septic first revisions in Group 1 and 3902 aseptic first revisions in Group 2. The adjusted cox regression analysis demonstrated that Group 1 had a greater risk of a second revision compared to Group 2 (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2-1.7]). Additionally, Group 1 had a greater risk of a third revision compared to Group 2 (adjusted HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.3]). Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the downstream risk of revision after a first revision TKA. The adjusted HR of the risk of a third revision was 1.6 higher for septic first rTKAs compared to aseptic first rTKAs, not counting insertions of spacers. This prolonged consequence of PJI is important information for both surgeons and patients. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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.