6%) passed away. No antibiotic or inhaler treatment for 52.5% and 70.5% respectively. The most used antipyretic treatment was paracetamol (78.7%).
 
  Prevalence in females, comorbility-free patients and in age range 46-60 years. Complementary and confirmatory test were performed mainly in hospital care. Predominance of mild symptoms and favourable evolution. Highliting the role played by Primary Health Care in detection, early intervention and monitoring of severe cases.
 Prevalence in females, comorbility-free patients and in age range 46-60 years. Complementary and confirmatory test were performed mainly in hospital care. Predominance of mild symptoms and favourable evolution. Highliting the role played by Primary Health Care in detection, early intervention and monitoring of severe cases.
  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been proven to be an effective surgical technique for unilateral compartment osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in the field of UKA research.
 
  Publications on UKA from 1980 to 2020 in the Web of Science database were retrieved. The characteristics of the top 100 cited articles were analyzed, including information of publications and citations, level of evidence, and research interests.
 
  The number of publications and citations increased over time. The majority of the highly cited articles were from the Nuffield Orthopedic Centre (Oxford, England) and the Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, USA). Long-term outcome of UKA and comparison between UKA and TKA gathered most research interests. The most frequently occurring keywords were "survival" and "revision." Since 2012, "life quality" and "robotics" have been used. There was no level I evidence, and most studies provided level IV evidence.
 
  There was a rising trend in publications and citations in the field of UKA research, the majority of them were from a few centers, and were low-level evidence. Most studies focused on the long-term outcomes of UKA; in recent years, patient satisfaction and navigation surgery have become new research trends.
 There was a rising trend in publications and citations in the field of UKA research, the majority of them were from a few centers, and were low-level evidence. Most studies focused on the long-term outcomes of UKA; in recent years, patient satisfaction and navigation surgery have become new research trends.
  The purpose of this study is to compare the long-term clinical and radiographic results, survival rates, and complication rates of an ultra-short vs a conventional length cementless anatomic femoral stem.
 
  We reviewed 759 patients (858 hips) (mean age, 56.3±12.9 y) who had an ultra-short cementless anatomic stem and 759 patients (858 hips) (mean age, 54.8±12.3 y) who had a conventional length cementless anatomic stem. The mean follow-up was 16.5 years (range 14-17) in the ultra-short stem group and 17.5 years (range 17-20) in the conventional stem group.
 
  At the latest follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the Harris Hip Scores (92±6 vs 91±7 points, P= .173), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis scores (12±8 vs 13±7 points, P= .972), University of California Los Angeles activity scores (7.6 vs 7.8 points, P= .841), patient satisfaction scores (7.7±2.3 vs 7.5±2.5 points, P= .981), and survival rates (97.6% vs 96.6%). However, incidence of thigh pain (P= .031) and stress shielding (P= .001) was significantly higher in the conventional length stem group than in the ultra-short anatomic stem group. Complication rates were similar (1.8% vs 2.7%) between the 2 groups.
 
  Although an ultra-short cementless anatomic femoral stem confers equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes, survival rates, and complication rates to conventional length cementless anatomic stem, the incidence of thigh pain and stress shielding was significantly lower in the ultra-short cementless anatomic stem.
 
  Therapeutic Level I.
 Therapeutic Level I.
  Persistent instability after hip revision is a serious problem. Our aim was to analyze surgical and patient-related risk factors for both a new dislocation and re-revision after first-time hip revision due to dislocation.
 
  We included patients with a primary THA due to osteoarthritis and a first-time revision due to dislocation registered in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR) from 1996 to 2016. We identified dislocations in the Danish National Patient Register and re-revisions in the DHR. Risk factors were analyzed by a multivariable regression analysis adjusting for the competing risk of death. Results are presented as subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR).
 
  We identified 1678 first-time revisions due to dislocation. Of these, 22.4% had a new dislocation. 19.8% were re-revised for any reason.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/sulfopin.html  With new dislocations treated by closed reduction as the endpoint, the sHR was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27-0.48) for those who had a constrained liner (CL) during revision and 0.21 (0.08-0.58) for dual mobility cups (DMC), thereby lowering the risk of dislocation compared to regular liners. Changing only the head/liner increased the risk of dislocation (sHR= 2.65; 2.05-3.42) compared to full cup revisions. The protective effect of CLs and DMCs on dislocations vanished when re-revisions became the endpoint. The head/liner exchange was still found inferior compared to cup revision (sHR= 1.73; 1.34-2.23).
 
  Patients revised with DMCs and CLs were associated with a lower risk of dislocation after a first-time revision but not re-revision, whereas only changing the head/liner was associated with a higher risk of dislocation and re-revision of any cause compared to cup revision.
 Patients revised with DMCs and CLs were associated with a lower risk of dislocation after a first-time revision but not re-revision, whereas only changing the head/liner was associated with a higher risk of dislocation and re-revision of any cause compared to cup revision.The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published in [Toxicology Letters, 339C (2021) 88–96], https//doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.11.022. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https//www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal