ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Machine Learning for Revision Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Distinct Challenges, Current Performance, and Clinical Readiness.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given the high complication rates and economic burden of revision total joint arthroplasty, machine learning (ML) models may offer a tool to improve outcomes. This study aims to review the application of ML for predicting outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. Methods: A comprehensive literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2024. Studies were screened in Covidence. Primary exclusion criteria included (1) systematic reviews; (2) not utilizing ML; and (3) not involving revision arthroplasty. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Studies focused on patient complications (n = 7), inpatient status and length of stay (n = 3), and readmissions and discharge dispositions (n = 2). One study looked at all 3 outcomes. Studies involved revision total knee arthroplasty (n = 6), revision total hip arthroplasty (n = 4), or a combination (n = 3). Eleven studies reported predictive success using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. 6.7% were in the poor range, 36.7% in the acceptable range, 48.3% in the excellent range, and 8.3% in the outstanding range. Ten studies were internally validated, and 3 were externally validated. Conclusions: ML algorithms used in revision total joint arthroplasty are complicated by greater heterogeneity, data sparsity, and outcome imbalance. They have utility in clinical settings for risk stratification, predicting complications, length of stay, and discharge disposition. However, these algorithms should be critically assessed before clinical adoption.
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.