ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Aseptic revision from one rotating-hinge to another rotating-hinge prosthesis - how good are the results?
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence on the outcome of aseptic exchange of rotating-hinge prosthesis is missing in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate implant survival, complication rates, and clinical outcomes following revision of a rotating-hinge prosthesis to another rotating-hinge prosthesis with anatomical axis. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween March 2014 and Juli 2023 62 cases of aseptic exchange of a rotating-hinge prosthesis were performed at a tertiary medical center in Germany. In this retrospective study, all patients were contacted for clinical follow-up and prosthesis survival. Implant survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and clinical outcomes were assessed using the Knee Society Score.
resultsThe 5-year implant survival rate was 83.4% (73.2-93.6, 95%-CI) for revision due to any reason, 85.1% (75.3-94.9, 95%-CI) for aseptic failure and 98.0% (94.1-100.0, 95%-CI: ) for septic failure. The estimated 10-year survival rates were 73.2% (59.2-87.1%; 95%-CI), 78.0% (65.1-90.9%; 95%-CI), and 93.9% (85.3-100.0%; 95%-CI), respectively. Improvements were observed in all KSS subdomains except for the Patient Expectation Score.
conclusionsThe exchange of a rotating-hinge prosthesis, using metaphyseal cones when indicated for bone defects, yields implant survival and complication rates comparable to those of primary rotating-hinge prosthesis implantation. However, clinical outcome scores tend to be lower than those reported for first-time implantation of rotating-hinge prostheses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41452499What 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.