ArticleThe Journal of arthroplasty2026
Low Follow-Up Rates After a Total Hip Arthroplasty Prosthesis Recall.
Article in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA modern hip arthroplasty liner was recalled for premature polyethylene wear with the potential for catastrophic osteolysis and failure. Physicians and hospitals are responsible for communicating recall information to patients. Our center instituted a protocol to reach patients who had recalled implants for follow-up. Our study looked at the effectiveness of this effort and risk factors for nonresponse.
methodsA retrospective study was performed to measure follow-up after total hip arthroplasty device recall. A standardized letter was used to reach out to all patients to notify them of the implant recall. Demographic information was collected, and an analysis was performed to determine risk factors for nonresponse.
resultsOf the 763 patients, 58.8% (n = 449) followed up after recall letters were sent. There were significant differences in the follow-up rate found among the four surgeons who performed the total hip arthroplasties. Patient proximity to the performing institution (n = 264), performing surgeon, and adequate health literacy (n = 677) were significant predictors of follow-up (P < 0.05). Age, sex, body mass index, and race were not associated with follow-up.
conclusionThe overall rate of follow-up was less than 60% despite an organized process for contacting patients to return for evaluation after implant recall. Our findings raise concerns for the large number of patients who did not follow up with the potential catastrophic failure of their implants that could otherwise be avoided with early detection of implant malfunction. An improved system for contacting patients and ensuring appropriate follow-up with recalled devices is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level IV.
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.