Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,245

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States

Open access
Bozic, Kevin J., Kurtz, Steven M., Lau, Edmund, Ong, Kevin, Chiu, Vanessa, Vail, Thomas P., Rubash, Harry E., Berry, Daniel J.·2010·Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Understanding the cause of failure and type of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed in the United States is essential in guiding research, implant design, and clinical decision making in TKA. We assessed the causes of failure and specific types of revision TKA procedures performed in the United States using newly implemented ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes related to revision TKA data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Clinical, demographic, and economic data were reviewed and analyzed from 60,355 revision TKA procedures performed in the United States between October 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. The most common causes of revision TKA were infection (25.2%) and implant loosening (16.1%), and the most common type of revision TKA procedure reported was all component revision (35.2%). Revision TKA procedures were most commonly performed in large, urban, nonteaching hospitals in Medicare patients ages 65 to 74. The average length of hospital stay (LOS) for all revision TKA procedures was 5.1 days, and the average total charges were $49,360. However, average LOS, average charges, and procedure frequencies varied considerably by census region, hospital type, and procedure performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 1,245

Metadata

Authors
Bozic, K. J., Kurtz, S. M., Lau, E., Ong, K., Chiu, V., Vail, T. P., Rubash, H. E., & Berry, D. J.
Venue
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-01
Volume
468
Issue
1
Pages
45-51
ISSN
0009-921X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0
OpenAlex
W2079911603
Cited by
1,245
References
13
FWCI
27.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0
The paper
Bozic, K. J., Kurtz, S. M., Lau, E., Ong, K., Chiu, V., Vail, T. P., Rubash, H. E., & Berry, D. J. (2010). The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.