ArticleBMC health services research2013
Surgical treatment approaches and reimbursement costs of surgical site infections post hip arthroplasty in Australia: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of cost and well-being in hip and knee replacements surgical site infections.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Differences in Infection Rates by Surgical Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Patient Sex: A Systematic Review.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2022Pooled it
- Is prosthesis retention effective for chronic infections in hip arthroplasties? A systematic literature review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015Pooled it
- Single- or two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2014Pooled it
- Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Trial
- Single-Stage Revision for Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Hospital Financial Burden of Surgical Procedures for Periprosthetic Total Hip Arthroplasty Infection.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Local Antibiotic Delivery Options in Prosthetic Joint Infection.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary knee arthroplasty in England and Wales : evidence from the National Joint Registry.Bone & joint research · 2022Article
- A review of current practices in periprosthetic joint infection debridement and revision arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2022Review
- Attributable cost and extra length of stay of surgical site infection at a Ghanaian teaching hospital.Infection prevention in practice · 2020Article
- The hospital cost of two-stage reimplantation for deep infection after shoulder arthroplasty.JSES open access · 2017Article
- The DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) procedure for infected total knee replacement - a literature review.SICOT-J · 2017Article
- Article
- The Exeter Knee Infection Multi Disciplinary Team approach to managing prosthetic knee infections: A qualitative analysis.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment for deep surgical site infection (SSI) following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) varies internationally and it is at present unclear which treatment approaches are used in Australia. The aim of this study is to identify current treatment approaches in Queensland, Australia, show success rates and quantify the costs of different treatments.
methodsData for patients undergoing primary THA and treatment for infection between January 2006 and December 2009 in Queensland hospitals were extracted from routinely used hospital databases. Records were linked with pathology information to confirm positive organisms. Diagnosis and treatment of infection was determined using ICD-10-AM and ACHI codes, respectively. Treatment costs were estimated based on AR-DRG cost accounting codes assigned to each patient hospital episode.
resultsA total of n=114 patients with deep surgical site infection were identified. The majority of patients (74%) were first treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), which was successful in eradicating the infection in 60.3% of patients with an average cost of $13,187. The remaining first treatments were 1-stage revision, successful in 89.7% with average costs of $27,006, and 2-stage revisions, successful in 92.9% of cases with average costs of $42,772. Multiple treatments following 'failed DAIR' cost on average $29,560, for failed 1-stage revision were $24,357, for failed 2-stage revision were $70,381 and were $23,805 for excision arthroplasty.
conclusionsAs treatment costs in Australia are high primary prevention is important and the economics of competing treatment choices should be carefully considered. These currently vary greatly across international settings.
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.