Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22081299›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2012

High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE.

Joachim Singer, Andreas Merz, Lars Frommelt, Bernd Fink

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02734134 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

One Stage Versus Two Stage For Periprosthetic Hip And Knee Infection

TypeinterventionalSponsorOrthoCarolina Research Institute, Inc.Ran2016 to 2026Enrolled343ConditionsSurgical Site InfectionArmsOne-stage exchange joint replacement surgery, Two-stage exchange joint replacement surgery
NCT03435679 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

One-stage Versus Two-stage Revision of the Infected Knee Arthroplasty. a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdense University HospitalRan2018 to 2026Enrolled97ConditionsPeriprosthetic Knee InfectionArmsone-stage, two-stage
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joachim SingerClinic of Joint Replacement, General and Rheumatic Orthopaedics, Orthopaedic Clinic Markgröningen gGmbH, Kurt-Lindemann-Weg 10, 71706, Markgröningen, Germany, j.singer@okm.de.
Andreas Merz
Lars Frommelt
Bernd Fink
Linde (Germany) · DEHelios Endo-Klinik Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rate of infection control for one-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasties is unclear as are the factors influencing infection control. Such factors include duration of infection and the type of infected prosthesis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined: (1) the rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses, (2) the clinical knee scores that can be achieved, (3) whether the duration of infection or the type of prosthesis influence the level of infection control, and (4) whether different types of prostheses influence the knee scores.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from 63 patients who underwent one-stage revisions of septic knee endoprostheses (six unicondylar, 37 primary total knee replacement prostheses, and 20 hinged knee endoprostheses) between 2004 and 2006. All were treated locally and systemically with microorganism-specific antibiotics. For this study we excluded patients with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis or unknown microorganisms. The patients were examined for infection every 3 months and Oxford and Knee Society scores were assessed at the same time. The minimum followup was 24 months (mean followup, 36 months; range, 24-70 months).

resultsNone of the patients with replacement unicondylar and primary total knee replacement prostheses had recurrence of infection. Three of the 20 patients with the hinged infected knee prostheses had recurrences; these three patients had chronic infections and had undergone two to three revision operations during at least a 5-year period. The likelihood of infection control was influenced by the duration of infection. The mean Knee Society knee score 24 months after surgery was 72 points (range, 20-98 points), the Knee Society function score was 71 points (range, 10-100 points), and the Oxford-12 knee score was 27 points (range, 13-44 points).

conclusionsOne-stage revision of septic knee prostheses achieved an infection control rate of 95% and higher knee scores than reported for two-stage revisions. Higher rates of recurrent infection appeared to be associated with long-term chronic infections of hinged prostheses.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHumansInfection ControlKnee JointKnee ProsthesisMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMiddle AgedProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID22081299
PMCPMC3314743
OpenAlexW2034696628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.