ArticleInternational orthopaedics2016
Risk factors and a prognostic model of hip periprosthetic infection recurrence after surgical treatment using articulating and non-articulating spacers.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of risk prediction scores for surgical site infection or periprosthetic joint infection following joint arthroplasty.Epidemiology and infection · 2017Pooled it
- Does spacer type influence bone lysis and clinical outcomes? A comparative analysis in two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Articular spacers in two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip and the knee.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2022Review
- Analysis of Failed Two-Stage Procedures with Resection Arthroplasty as the First Stage in Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Two-stage hip revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection without the use of spacer or cemented implants.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- Mechanical failure of articulating polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacers in two-stage revision hip arthroplasty: the risk factors and the impact on interim function.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
- The risk factors of failed reimplantation arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Article
- Chronic periprosthetic hip infection: micro-organisms responsible for infection and re-infection.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Retention of the well-fixed implant in the single-stage exchange for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty: an average of five years of follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was evaluation of the efficacy of the first step of a two-stage procedure for treatment of hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) using articulating and non-articulating spacers as well as development of a prediction model and prognostic score for infection recurrence.
methodsIn a cohort of 217 patients treated for PJI of the hip, demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, body temperature, body mass index (BMI), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), microbiological cultures and the type of the spacer used were retrospectively analyzed for association with the recurrence of PJI.
resultsPatients with infection recurrence had increased levels of ESR and CRP (P < 0.001) together with higher BMI and shorter infection manifestation period after previous surgery (P < 0.05). Among these patients, there was no significant difference of clinical characteristics between subjects with articulating and non-articulating spacers. Microbial associations were more often identified in patients with recurrent infection (50 %, P < 0.01) where Gram-negative bacteria were predominant (61.5 %, P < 0.01). These patients had higher percentage of Acinetobacter sp. and P. aeruginosa isolates (28.2 %, P < 0.01).
conclusionsEfficacy of the first step of two-stage revision was 64.1 %. Placement of either articulating or non-articulating spacers did not influence recovery from PJI. Laboratory values of ESR, CRP, BMI and the type of previous surgery were identified as main factors that affect outcomes of the two-stage procedure. A prognostic model with the calculation of a total risk score for PJI recurrence was developed.
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.