Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26822990›Full record

Observational studyActa orthopaedica2016

2-stage revision of 120 deep infected hip and knee prostheses using gentamicin-PMMA beads.

Daniël M C Janssen, Jan A P Geurts, Liesbeth M C Jütten, Geert H I M Walenkamp

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta orthopaedica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Editorial.Acta orthopaedica · 2016
    Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniël M C Janssena Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht , the Netherlands.
Jan A P Geurtsa Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht , the Netherlands.
Liesbeth M C Jüttena Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht , the Netherlands.
Geert H I M Walenkampa Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht , the Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - A 2-stage revision is the most common treatment for late deep prosthesis-related infections and in all cases of septic loosening. However, there is no consensus about the optimal interval between the 2 stages. Patients and methods - We retrospectively studied 120 deep infections of total hip (n = 95) and knee (n = 25) prostheses that had occurred over a period of 25 years. The mean follow-up time was 5 (2-20) years. All infections had been treated with extraction, 1 or more debridements with systemic antibiotics, and implantation of gentamicin-PMMA beads. There had been different time intervals between extraction and reimplantation: median 14 (11-47) days for short-term treatment with uninterrupted hospital stay, and 7 (3-22) months for long-term treatment with temporary discharge. We analyzed the outcome regarding resolution of the infection and clinical results. Results - 88% (105/120) of the infections healed, with no difference in healing rate between short- and long-term treatment. 82 prostheses were reimplanted. In the most recent decade, we treated patients more often with a long-term treatment but reduced the length of time between the extraction and the reimplantation. More reimplantations were performed in long-term treatments than in short-term treatments, despite more having difficult-to-treat infections with worse soft-tissue condition. Interpretation - Patient, wound, and infection considerations resulted in an individualized treatment with different intervals between stages. The 2-stage revision treatment in combination with local gentamicin-PMMA beads gave good results even with difficult prosthesis infections and gentamicin-resistant bacteria.

Indexed as

ForecastingPolymethyl MethacrylateAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeDebridementFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGentamicinsHip ProsthesisHumansKnee ProsthesisMaleAnti-Bacterial AgentsGentamicinsPolymethyl Methacrylate

Identifiers

PMID26822990
PMCPMC4967272
OpenAlexW2264600275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.