ArticleJSES international2025
Re-revision following revision of a failed primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.
Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is the most common type of shoulder replacement in the UK and its use continues to rise. There is minimal data in the literature looking at re-revision following revision of a failed rTSA. This study utilizes the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England to calculate the incidence and risk factors for re-revision of a failed primary rTSA. Methods: Patients were included if they had a revision procedure between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2022. This National Joint Registry database was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Interventions and Procedures version 4.9 codes were used to identify a further revision procedure. The primary outcome was implant survival, the Kaplan-Meir method was used for analysis. Secondary outcomes were risk factors that predispose a patient to a further revision procedure. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess for independent risk factors for re-revision. Results: There were 685 patients who underwent a revision of a primary rTSA done by 244 consultant surgeons with a median caseload of 4 patients (interquartile range 2-7) over a 10-year period. At 1 year, the incidence of re-revision was 15.91%; at 3 years, it was 21.41%; and at 5 years, it was 23.18%. A 1-year decrease in age resulted in a 4% increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.94-0.98]), and if the primary revision was due to instability/dislocation, there was a 2-fold increased risk of re-revision compared to if the primary revision was done for any other indication (hazard ratio 2.47 [95% confidence interval 1.59-3.82]). Conclusion: Re-revision rates following revision rTSA are high with independent risk factors being younger age and instability as primary revision diagnosis. Given the risk profile and low volume of revision cases performed by surgeons, centralizing revision rTSA surgeries to high-volume centers may warrant further exploration to improve outcomes.
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.