ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
Early revision in total joint arthroplasty surgery - a narrative review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Suggestive Association Between Tryptophan-indole Metabolic Pathway and Total Joint Arthroplasty Early Revision for Heterogeneous Failure Modes in Patients With Primary Osteoarthritis: A Meta-analysis of Metabolomics.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Manual versus robotic-assisted revision total knee arthroplasty for instability : a one-year cohort analysis.Bone & joint open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Revision surgery is widely recognized as the main performance index for Total Joint Arthroplasty (TJA). Whereas long-term revision rate is used for measuring implant durability, "early revision" is still not clearly defined, with timeframes ranging from 3 to 6 months until 2 or even 3 years used in the literature. Aim of this work is to review the current literature specifically related to "early" revisions, in order to provide an overview over reasons for early revision surgery. Methods: Because of lack of definitions, a narrative review approach was chosen. Literature review of articles published within the last 10 years retrieved 254 articles. After applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, 55 publications were analysed. An accepted standard for narrative review was used. Results: The analysed articles showed a marked heterogeneity in reported timeframes for early revision, but we found values labelled as "early" between 1 month and 5 years. 3-months revision rates ranged between 0.5% - 1.5% for total hip arthroplasty (THA), and were approximately 0.5% for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for all causes. 5-year revision rates were between 2% - 4% for THA and between 3% - 5% for TKA for all causes. Furthermore, we found that the heterogeneity for the applied time definitions in early revisions do not allow a direct comparison for all-cause revision procedures. Conclusions: Similarly to long term revision results, there is heterogeneity in short term revision results. It can be useful to take into account homogenous groups when comparing early revision outcomes, for example among same reason for revision. Moreover, several paper contributions suggested a significant dependence on modifiable patient characteristics at primary procedure.
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.