ArticleDer Orthopade2015
[Revision arthroplasty : Histopathological diagnostics in periprosthetic joint infections].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Histopathology in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: When Will the Morphomolecular Diagnosis Be a Reality?BioMed research international · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistopathological differences in synovia and synovial-like interface membrane (SLIM) patterns can be used to differentiate periprosthetic particle-induced reactions, bacterial infections (bacterial synovitis and osteomyelitis), mechanical-induced tissue alterations, adverse reactions to implant material, and arthrofibrosis (SLIM consensus classification).
aimBecause of differences in treatment the diagnosis of a bacterial implant infection is very important. Histopathological tests and scoring systems are important diagnostic tools in identifying deep implant infections in patients with unclear clinical history as well as radiographic and laboratory studies.
resultsModern enzyme PCR-based methods, histochemical- and immune-histopathological techniques (CD3,CD15, CD68) are useful in identifying specific and nonspecific infections, as well as differentiating postsurgical changes from recurrent infections in patients with a spacer. In all histopathological scoring systems for bacterial infection, quantifying the number of neutrophil granulocytes in a defined number of high power fields is crucial. DISCUSSION: Neutrophil granulocytes can be detected through histochemical methods and more specifically by immune-histopathological techniques and by various quantification systems (histopathological scores) leading to the diagnosis of bacterial peri-implant infection. One important function of histopathology, apart from diagnosing infection, is to rule out other mechanisms of implant failure, such as tumor infiltrations, particle-induced reactions, and adverse reactions to implant materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25731144What 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.