ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
The long-term revision risk of RSA-tested and non-RSA-tested TKA implants in The Netherlands: a Dutch arthroplasty register study.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRadiostereometric analysis (RSA) of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is used as an early safeguard during the phased evidence-based introduction of new implants. The goal of our study was to compare the long-term revision risk between RSA-tested implants and non-RSA-tested implants in the Netherlands using patient-level data.
methodsAll primary TKAs between 2007 and 2016 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included, and procedures with an RSA-tested implant were identified. Both all-cause major revision risk and revision risk because of loosening were calculated at 5 and 10 years postoperatively using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed with stricter definitions of implant characteristics to classify procedures as RSA-tested, to avoid camouflage of different subdesigns within the same brand implant portfolio.
results83,638 RSA-tested and 104,105 non-RSA-tested TKAs were included. Cumulative all-cause major revision percentages for the RSA-tested group at 5 and 10 years were 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.3) and 3.6% (CI 3.4-3.7), respectively, compared with 2.5% (CI 2.4-2.6) and 3.3% (CI 3.2-3.4) for the non-RSA-tested group. RSA-tested TKAs showed higher 10-year revision risks because of loosening than non-RSA-tested procedures (1.8%, CI 1.7-1.9 vs 1.4%, CI 1.3-1.4, respectively). Comparable results were found after stratification by various patient characteristics and with stricter classification approaches.
conclusionRegarding all-cause revision risk, RSA-tested TKAs had a slightly lower risk at 5 years. However, at 10 years the RSA-tested TKAs had a higher all-cause revision risk and higher revision risk because of loosening compared with the non-RSA-tested TKAs.
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.