ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Associations between hospital characteristics, volume, and reasons for revision: a cohort study of 48,029 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties with 3,397 revisions from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age-stratified risk of major systemic complications following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a nationwide cohort study.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Article
- Editorial: The value of arthroplasty registries: from surveillance to societal impact.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
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 purposeIt remains debated whether high annual hospital volumes for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are associated with a low risk of revision, and what explanations may underlie this relationship. We aimed to analyze the association between specific hospital characteristics defined as volume, type, and referral for revision, and frequency and reasons for UKA revision.
methodsData from primary UKAs (2007-2022) and their revisions were extracted from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Hospitals were categorized by type; academic, top clinical teaching, private, or other general hospitals. Hospitals were grouped by annual UKA volume: ≤24, 25-39, 40-79, and ≥80 procedures. Multiple linear regression assessed the relationship between the number of revisions with hospital volume and type, adjusted for confounders. Chi-squared tests were used to test for differences in revision reasons based on volume and referrals.
results48,029 primary UKAs and 3,397 revisions were included. High-volume and top clinical teaching hospitals had a significantly lower risk of revision following primary UKA (P < 0.001). Cementless implants had a lower risk compared with cemented implants. Revision reasons varied by hospital volume and whether revision occurred after referral (P < 0.001). Loosening, progression of osteoarthritis, malalignment, and pain were less common in the highest volume hospitals. If revision occurred after referral, malalignment was more frequently registered as the reason for revision.
conclusionHigh-volume and top clinical teaching hospitals were associated with lower risk of revision following primary UKA. Differences in revision reasons, with fewer cases of loosening, progression of osteoarthritis, malalignment, and pain, may explain the lower risk of revision at higher volume hospitals.
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.