ArticlePLoS medicine2025
The association between implant design, age, sex and the rate of major reoperation in patients undergoing primary total hip replacement: A retrospective study of UK National Joint Registry and Hospital Episodes Statistics data.
Article in PLoS medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant revision is an operation with exchange of implants, and is used as a standard outcome after total hip replacement (THR), but may not fully represent the patient experience after a THR. Major reoperation (hereafter referred to as 'reoperation') without revision of implants can also lead to increased patient morbidity and mortality, and most commonly occurs when the femur fractures around an implant (postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures; POPFF) and is treated with fixation and the implant is left in place. Reliance on revision metrics that do not capture these reoperations has led to large-scale underreporting of reoperations in THR, and is likely to have affected implant performance estimates, which have guided national policy and implant selection. It is important to include these additional reoperations when estimating treatment success to guide innovation and clinical practice. We aimed to estimate the incidence of reoperation following primary THR. METHODS AND
findingsWe performed a large national cohort study on a mandatory, prospective database, the National Joint Registry, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. All linkable primary THRs using recently available implants, with highest safety ratings between 01/01/2010 and 31/12/2020, were included. Major reoperation was defined as the first revision for any cause or fixation of POPFF and was identified using a combination of procedural and diagnosis codes. We identified 372,967 THRs representing 2,127,464 prostheses years at risk with a median follow-up time of 5.39 years (range 0 to 12.1 years). A total of 8,043 reoperations were identified that had been surgically treated by revision for any cause or fixation of POPFF. The incidence of reoperation was 3.78% (95% confidence interval [CI 3.70%, 3.86%]) per 1,000 prostheses years in comparison to 3.00% (95% CI [2.93%, 3.07%]) per 1,000 prostheses years when using conventional revision only outcomes. Cumulative incidence of major reoperation at 10 years was 3.1% (95% CI [3.0%, 3.1%]). Cumulative reoperation estimates were stratified by age and sex. In men aged 68 years and older, collared cementless stems performed better than cemented stems and in women aged 75 years and older, the relationship was reversed. Residual differences in patient characteristics may affect the accuracy of the estimates.
conclusionsTreatment failure after THR has been underrepresented by revision-only estimates. Major reoperation rates in older men were lowest with cementless collared stems, and in older women, reoperation rates were lowest with cemented polished taper stems made of stainless steel. These results prompt a review of the current implant guidance for hip replacements in older patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (Retrospective cohort study).
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.