Sex-based differences in risk of revision for infection after hip, knee, shoulder, and ankle arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients: a multinational registry study of 4,800,000 implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to determine sex differences for periprosthetic joint infections after primary arthroplasty of the hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder in osteoarthritis patients in an international perspective. METHODS: This is a multinational combined arthroplasty registry study. Each arthroplasty registry performed Cox-regression analysis of their data and reported the crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with an a priori designed data form. A random-effects model was used to pool these HRs to estimate an overall HR with 95% confidence interval (CI). Adjustment was undertaken for patient age, BMI, ASA grade, type of fixation, and type of implant. 9 arthroplasty registries participated. Patients who received primary total joint arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis were considered: 2,134,313 hip arthroplasties, 2,658,237 knee arthroplasties, 57,889 shoulder arthroplasties, and 8,445 ankle arthroplasties. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) for the overall risk of complete revision due to infection for each implant type and follow-up. RESULTS: The pooled HR for revision due to infection for men compared with women at 1-year follow-up was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.80) for hip arthroplasties; 2.06 (CI 1.90-2.46) for knee arthroplasties; 4.51 (CI 2.99-6.80) for shoulder arthroplasties; and 0.87 (CI 0.46-1.62) for ankle arthroplasties. These results remained consistent over time and were identified in both unadjusted and adjusted models. CONCLUSION: Men have a higher risk of revision due to infection than women after primary hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasty. No evidence of difference was found for ankle arthroplasty. These elevated relative risks persist in the fully adjusted investigations and over the 10-year postoperative period studied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".