Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40955102›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2025

Surgeon Learning Curve With Selection of New Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants and Risk of Revision: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

Tesfaye H Leta, Brian H Fasig, Adrian D Hinman, Nithin C Reddy, Matthew P Kelly, Elizabeth W Paxton, Heather A Prentice

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tesfaye H LetaThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Brian H FasigMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Adrian D HinmanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group, San Leandro, CA, USA.
Nithin C ReddyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA.
Matthew P KellyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Harbor City, CA, USA.
Elizabeth W PaxtonMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Heather A PrenticeMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2200-6564

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisLearning CurveReoperationAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsRegistriesimplantlearning curverevisionsurgeon volumetotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID40955102
PMCPMC12703534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.