ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
High-volume hospitals do not perform better than low-volume hospitals in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of re-revision risk and mortality based on the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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.
- Patient injuries after total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in Sweden over 10 years: a cohort study based on 1,343 patients.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Editorial: The value of arthroplasty registries: from surveillance to societal impact.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRevision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a complex procedure that may benefit from centralization. We examined the association between annual hospital volume of rTHA and re-revision risk and mortality.
methodsWe included all rTHAs between 2007 and 2022 in general hospitals, registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI; n = 12,515). Hospitals were categorized into low (< 25 rTHA/year) or high volume (≥ 25 rTHA/year). Competing-risk analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to assess implant re-revision and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for mortality. Results were stratified into septic (permanent Girdlestone, 1-stage, and 2-stage revisions) and aseptic first revisions.
results1-stage septic revisions showed a higher risk of re-revision in high-volume hospitals (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.4). We found no difference in re-revision risk after DAIR (HR 1.1, CI 0.9-1.3). 2-stage septic revisions were more often performed in high-volume hospitals (5% vs 2%). There was no statistical difference in re-revision rates between hospitals after revision for aseptic loosening (HR 1.1, CI 0.9-1.4), dislocation (HR 1.1, CI 0.9-1.4), and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.1, CI 0.8-1.5). Mortality showed no differences between groups, neither for septic nor aseptic revisions.
conclusionThere was no difference between high-volume hospitals and low-volume hospitals regarding risk for re-revision after aseptic loosening, dislocation and periprosthetic fracture, and septic DAIR and mortality. In high-volume hospitals, 1-stage septic revisions was associated with a significantly higher re-revision risk. 2-stage revisions are more frequent in high-volume hospitals, indicating more complex pathology.
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.