LAUSR

When introducing an implant, surgeons are subjected to steep learning curves, which may lead to a heightened revision rate. Stepwise introduction revolutionized implant introduction but lacks a last step. No guidelines exist for the introduction of a well-documented implant not previously used in a department. This is problematic according to the European Union’s legislated tendering process, potentially leading to increased revisions. In this systematic review, the introduction of a well-documented total hip arthroplasty implant to experienced surgeons is explored amid concerns of higher revision rate. Literature search strategies were deployed in the Embase and Medline databases, revealing a total of 14,612 articles. Using the Covidence software (Cochrane, London), two reviewers screened articles for inclusion. No articles were found that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. A post hoc analysis retrieved two national register-based studies only missing information about the surgeon’s knowledge of the introduced implant. None of the introduced implants decreased the revision rate and around 30% of the introduced implants were associated with a higher revision rate. The review showed that no data exist about revision rates when introducing well-documented implants. In continuation thereof, the introduction of well-documented implants might also be associated with increased revision rates, as has been shown for total knee arthroplasty. We therefore suggest that special attention should be focused on changes of implants in departments, which can be achieved by way of specific registration in national registers. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:3-8. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200047