ArticleBone & joint open2025
Higher revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty among patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with osteoarthritis.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Although therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have advanced, it remains unclear whether RA continues to carry an elevated risk for revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare revision rates of patients with RA undergoing primary THA with those of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: This observational cohort study was based on data from the German Arthroplasty Registry from November 2012 to March 2024. Primary THA procedures in RA patients were compared with those in OA patients. Cumulative revision rates over nine years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimations. Differences by type of revision (major/minor), cause (aseptic/septic), and implant fixation were tested using the log-rank test and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results: A total of 12,750 THAs in RA patients were compared with 528,435 in OA patients. Overall, 17,434 revisions were recorded (RA 604; OA 16,830). At nine years, higher cumulative revision rates were observed in RA patients for major (5.1% vs 3.1%; p < 0.0001) and minor revisions (1.7% vs 1.1%; p < 0.0001), regardless of cause. After adjustment for demographic characteristics and fixation type, RA was associated with increased risk of major (hazard ratio (HR) 1.48, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.63; p < 0.001) and minor revision (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.88; p < 0.001). In RA patients, hybrid fixation was linked to lower major revision risk compared with uncemented fixation (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; p < 0.001). Cementless fixation predominated in both groups (RA 69%, OA 78%). Conclusion: An increased risk of major and minor revision after primary THA was found in RA patients compared with OA patients, independent of cause. Although hybrid fixation was linked to lower major revision risk than uncemented fixation, cementless fixation remained the most common method in RA patients.
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.