ArticleBone & joint open2025
Re-revision risk of modular and monobloc revision stems after revision hip arthroplasty.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Modular revision stem fracture is a rare but difficult complication after hip arthroplasty revision. The purpose of this German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)-based study was to investigate whether the overall re-revision rate and the re-revision reasons of modular revision stems compared with monobloc stems are different. Methods: A total of 291 re-revisions occurring within five years after implantation of a revision stem (n = 2,039) documented in the EPRD were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression. Stem type (modular: n = 1,026, monobloc: n = 1,013) and revision reason were investigated as independent variables, while BMI, sex, age, hospitals' annual revision volume, and Elixhauser score were treated as confounding variables. Cases with an infection at index surgery were analyzed separately. Results: Re-revision risk after five years was similar for either stem type (modular: 18.7% ( 95% CI 15.9 to 21.9); monobloc: 15.6% (95% CI 13.2 to 18.4); p = 0.200). One stem fracture of a modular revision stem was reported. The main reasons for re-revision were infection (modular/monobloc: 50%/60% of all revisions; p = 0.200), dislocation (19.8%/9.6%; p = 0.045), and loosening (12.2%/11.4%; p > 0.999). An Elixhauser score of 4 and above was associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) for re-revision for either stem type (modular/monobloc: HR 2.01; p = 0.026/HR 2.44; p = 0.004), as well as a BMI category above 25/40 (modular/monobloc: HR 1.73 to 3.25; all p < 0.025/HR 3.61; p < 0.001). An infected index surgery increased the re-revision risk after one year to 26.0% (95% CI 22.2% to 30.3%) compared with 8.3% for noninfected cases (95% CI 7.0% to 9.8%) (p < 0.001) independent of stem type. Conclusion: A high BMI increases the HR for revision for either stem design but not due to mechanical implant failure. Infection at the index operation increases re-revision risk significantly, and is also the dominant reason for re-revision independent of stem type.
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.