ReviewDer Orthopade2015
[Septic endoprosthesis exchange : Preoperative diagnosis and reimplantation].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2015. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the standard procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in Germany - results of a survey within the EndoCert initiative.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- [Implant-associated joint infections].Der Orthopade · 2020Article
- [Native joint infections].Der Orthopade · 2020Review
- Procedure for single-stage implant retention for chronic periprosthetic infection using topical degradable calcium-based antibiotics.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- [Treatment of periprosthetic infections].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016Review
- [Management of periprosthetic infections of the knee].Der Orthopade · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is truly challenging. Patients with infected arthroplasty face physical and psychosocial problems. Furthermore, treatment costs represent a tremendous socioeconomic burden.
aimThis article presents an overview of the preoperative diagnosis of PJI and one- or two-stage endoprosthetic exchange options.
methodA selective literature search was performed focusing on diagnostics and innovative surgical treatment concepts in PJI.
resultsThe identification of the underlying pathogen is still the main focus in the diagnosis of PJI. State-of-the-art therapy for PJI with mature biofilm consists of implant removal with one- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty. One-stage exchange offers lower morbidity and improved functional outcome, whereas a two-stage procedure is, according to current knowledge, more favourable in terms of infection control. The novel short-term two-stage exchange regimen combines the advantages of both possibilities. DISCUSSION: Prosthetic joint infection represents a significant challenge for the othopaedic surgeon. Novel treatment options can help to improve outcome and lower the costs to the health care system.
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.