The survival of the revised implants until re-revision was not focus of the current study, but the prevalence of radiographic loosening signs ranged between 5-10% for cups and stems depending on follow-up year and remained relatively stable during the first five post-revision years.
We have now produced revised figures showing estimated survival probabilities during the initial time interval to make this clear (see Supplementary Data).
Actuarial survival analysis emphasises the importance of frequently revising predictions for survival in high-risk infants, particularly during the first week of life.
Their revised estimate of 20-year survival (Albertsen et al, 2005a) indicated that annual mortality rates remained stable after 15 years from diagnosis.
None of these metal-backed components had to be revised, and the 10-year survival was comparable, which suggests that in our study these hip resurfacings did not have any negative influence on the results.
The inclusion criteria for survival studies were (1) primary TKP; (2) follow-up of 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 years; (3) endpoint revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the tibial component, or indication for revision surgery in patients with poor general health or decline; and (4) survival or percentage revised to be available for specific follow-up (see point 2).
The implant survival rate was 89%, with 16 knees either revised or scheduled for revision.
As potential predictive factors, fracture type according to Tile's classification, and generally used traumatic parameters (injury severity score, revised trauma score, and probability of survival) were analyzed.
At the last follow-up, five stems and 54 cups had been revised, corresponding to stem and cup survival rates of 92% ± 3% and 45% ± 5% at 26 years.
Secondly, survival differences between all revised well-differentiated liposarcomas that underwent molecular biological analysis were remarkable.
