ArticleDer Orthopade2011
[Hip joint infections - Results of a questionnaire among 28 university orthopedic departments].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Handmade spacers for two-stage exchange at the hip.Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2023Review
- [Comparison of DRG revenues between fast and slow-track procedures for a two-stage replacement of prostheses for periprosthetic hip infections in the aG-DRG system 2020].Der Orthopade · 2021Article
- [Periprosthetic hip-TEP infections after dental procedures : Maybe an indication for antibiotic treatment after all?]Der Orthopade · 2018Article
- [Surgery of sepsis in orthopedics and trauma - A highlight : Current survey by the section for bone and soft tissue infections of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma].Der Unfallchirurg · 2017Article
- [Analysis of extent and quality of treatment of arthrosis patients based on routine data from German statutory health insurance].Der Orthopade · 2014Article
- [Revision implants of the future: trends and new developments].Der Orthopade · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite numerous prophylactic measures infections still remain a hazardous complication in orthopedic surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsA questionnaire about hip joint infections was sent to all university orthopedic departments in Germany and Austria. The questionnaire included 33 questions with respect to demographic data, causative organisms, diagnostic measures, treatment options for early and late infections, antibiotic therapy and prosthesis reimplantation.
resultsThe participation rate was 70%. The most frequent primary surgical indication was primary total hip replacement and Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis were the most common pathogens identified. All departments performed a joint aspiration for diagnosis confirmation but for other diagnostic measures a great discrepancy could be observed. In the treatment of early infections removable components were always exchanged, whereas a local antibiotic therapy was not always employed. With regard to late infections a two-stage protocol was more frequently used than a one-stage treatment, whereby the implantation of a cement spacer was more commonly performed than a resection arthroplasty. The time between stages varied between 6 and 12 weeks and systemic antibiotics were administered for a mean time of 6 weeks. For prosthesis reimplantion cementless components were mostly used but no clear tendency could be determined for systemic antibiotic therapy.
conclusionTreatment of hip joint infections among German and Austrian university orthopedic departments is only partly carried out in a similar manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.