ArticleANZ journal of surgery2025
New Zealand Joint Registry Surgeon-Level Feedback: The Influence of Reporting Timeframe on Distribution of Reasons for Revision Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational joint registries have improved arthroplasty surgery by creating databases that monitor implant performance and recognize early implant failure. The New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) provides surgeon reports on individual revision rates, and outliers are identified using funnel plots. Historically, all-time revision rates were used; although reporting shorter timeframes is being considered. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of reporting shorter timeframes on the distribution of reasons for revision following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
methodsData was obtained from the NZJR for TKA performed from the registry's inception in 1998 to 31 December 2021. Distribution of reasons for revision for primary TKA was analyzed by postoperative year and reporting timeframe. Reporting timeframes of revision within 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 years were evaluated.
resultsInfection accounted for 54.5% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one and a lower proportion over time, decreasing to 16.9% in year 10. Aseptic loosening accounted for 9.0% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one, increasing to 56.9% in year 10. Reporting revision within 2 years would result in a 60% increase in the proportion of reasons for revision attributed to deep infection (p < 0.001) and a 65% decrease in the proportion attributed to loosening (p < 0.001) compared with revision within 10 years.
conclusionsRevision within 2 years would be a suitable shorter timeframe for reporting to surgeons. While this may ensure feedback reflects recent practice and increase responsiveness to changes in performance, the distribution of reasons for revision would change substantially compared to revision within 10 years, with a markedly higher proportion attributed to infection. Debate regarding the role of individual surgeons in causing deep infections will become increasingly important if this shorter timeframe is reported.
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.