Exact(31)
The stem not being revised at the index revision increased the risk of a second cup revision by 78% (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.2 2.6).
The results of this analysis were similar to those found for the entire study population, i.e. inclusion of those cases where the stem had also been revised during the index revision procedure (total hip revisions; data not shown).
The scenario of an unstable stem that was not revised together with the cup at the index revision procedure because it was wrongly thought to be stable could distort our results.
One isolated acetabular revision was done 14 years after the index revision and the stem was found to be stable at that time.
The index revision was the fourth revision.
Mean age at the time of the index revision was 72 (19 95) years.
Similar(29)
803 (45%) of the index revisions were isolated cup revisions, and in 977 (55%) the stem was revised together with the investigated cup.
At the index revisions, there were 1,339 women (54%).
An explanation for the high percentage of reoperations for infections in our study could be the relatively high percentage of index revisions that were performed for septic loosening (14 procedures [41%]).
In addition, we found that younger age at the time of the index cup revision and previous revision surgery of the same joint increased the risk of subsequent re-revision.
The median time between the index cup revision and re-revision of any component was 0.7 years (0.1 5). 10 of the re-revisions were performed during the first year after the index cup revision.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com