Explant analysis and implant registries are both needed to further improve patient safety
EFORT Open Reviews, ISSN: 2058-5241, Vol: 7, Issue: 6, Page: 344-348
2022
- 2Citations
- 16Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- Captures16
- Readers16
- 16
Article Description
In the early days of total joint replacement, implant fracture, material problems and wear presented major problems for the long-term success of the operation. Today, failures directly related to the implant comprise only 2–3% of the reasons for revision surgeries, which is a result of the material and design improvements in combination with the standardization of pre-clinical testing methods and the post-market surveillance required by the legal regulation. Arthroplasty registers are very effective tools to document the long-term clinical performance of implants and implantation techniques such as fixation methods in combination with patient characteristics. Revisions due to implant failure are initially not reflected by the registries due to their small number. Explant analysis including patient, clinical and imaging documentation is crucial to identify failure mechanisms early enough to prevent massive failures detectable in the registries. In the past, early reaction was not always successful, since explant analysis studies have either been performed late or the results did not trigger preventive measures until clinical failures affected a substantial number of patients. The identification of implant-related problems is only possible if all failures are reported and related to the number of implantations. A system that analyses all explants from revisions attributed to implant failure is mandatory to reduce failures, allowing improvement of risk assessment in the regulatory process.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know