ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Re-revision surgery in revision total hip arthroplasty: the impact of timing on outcomes.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiology, risk factors and outcomes of re-revision total hip arthroplasty remain poorly defined. This study aimed to evaluate implant survivorship, timing of failure, and factors associated with subsequent re-revision surgery following index revision THA using time-to-event analyses.
methods290 revision total hip arthroplasties were analyzed between 2017 and 2022 at a single academic institution. Re-revision surgery was defined as any further revision procedure following the index revision total hip arthroplasties. The primary endpoint was the first re-revision procedure after index revision total hip arthroplasty. Patients were stratified according to re-revision timing during available follow-up as early re-revision (< 1 year), late re-revision (> 1 year), or no re-revision during available follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate implant survival and independent risk factors for subsequent re-revision surgery.
resultsAmong 290 revision total hip arthroplasty, 72 (24.8%) re-revisions were identified, including 41 (14.1%) early and 31 (10.7%) late re-revisions. Early failures were proportionally more associated with instability and periprosthetic joint infection, whereas aseptic loosening and polyethylene wear were proportionally more frequent among later failures. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses, revision total hip arthroplasty performed for periprosthetic joint infection remained independently associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revision surgery (HR 3.178, 95% CI 1.595-6.335; p < 0.001), whereas revision total hip arthroplasty performed for polyethylene wear demonstrated independently improved implant survivorship (HR 0.099, 95% CI 0.013-0.723; p = 0.023). Five-year survivorship free from re-revision surgery was 61.3% (95% CI 49.3%-73.3%) for periprosthetic joint infection revisions compared with 95.6% (95% CI 85.6%-98.9%) for polyethylene wear revisions. Significant postoperative functional improvement was observed in all groups (p < 0.001).
conclusionRevision total hip arthroplasty performed for periprosthetic joint infection was independently associated with inferior implant survivorship and increased risk of subsequent re-revision surgery, whereas revision total hip arthroplasty performed for polyethylene wear demonstrated improved survivorship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42322417What 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.