ArticleThe Permanente journal2025
Surgeon Learning Curve With Selection of New Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants and Risk of Revision: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.
Article in The Permanente journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrior studies have reported learning curves as surgeons adopt new technology/techniques. The authors sought to evaluate revision risk following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to assess whether a learning curve was observed as surgeons transitioned to 1) a new implant from the same manufacturer and 2) a new implant from a new manufacturer.
methodsPatients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent primary fixed bearing, posterior stabilized, fully cemented TKA with patella resurfacing were identified using a US integrated health care system's total joint replacement registry (2009-2023). The exposure groups were categorized in these groups: baseline implant (reference), first 50 TKA with new implant (≤ 50), second 50 (51-100), third 50 (101-150), and the remainder (> 150). A multiple Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate revision risk with adjustment for confounders.
resultsThe intra-manufacturer cohort comprised 42,743 TKA. A higher revision risk was observed for the ≤ 50 group compared to the baseline group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.86); no other differences were observed after the first 50 TKA (51-100: HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.71-1.34; 101-150: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.32; > 150: HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34). However, the association was no longer significant after excluding the TKA performed with the Attune fixed bearing tray, which has been associated with a higher risk of revision in the total joint replacement registry. The inter-manufacturer cohort comprised 19,817 TKA. No differences were observed when comparing a new manufacturer to the baseline manufacturer. DISCUSSION: Surgeons should be cautious for the first several TKA when transitioning to a new implant given the relationship between surgeon and implant on revision risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.