Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27123818›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2016

Detection of bacteria with molecular methods in prosthetic joint infection: sonication fluid better than periprosthetic tissue.

Mitja Rak, Martina KavčIč, Rihard Trebše, Andrej CőR

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Small-colony variant ofArthroplasty today · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Diagnosis ofArthroplasty today · 2018
    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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mitja Raka Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Primorska , Izola ;
Martina KavčIčb Medical Microbiology Department, National Laboratory of Health , Environment and Food , Koper ;
Rihard Trebšec Valdoltra Orthopaedic Hospital , Ankaran , Slovenia.
Andrej CőRa Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Primorska , Izola ;
National Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food · SIOrthopaedic Hospital Valdoltra · SIUniversity of Primorska · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - The correct diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult because bacteria form a biofilm on the surface of the implant. The sensitivity of culture from sonication fluid is better than that from periprosthetic tissue, but no comparison studies using molecular methods on a large scale have been performed. We assessed whether periprosthetic tissue or sonication fluid should be used for molecular analysis. Patients and methods - Implant and tissue samples were retrieved from 87 patients who underwent revision operation of total knee or total hip arthroplasty. Both sample types were analyzed using broad-range (BR-) PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene. The results were evaluated based on the definition of periprosthetic joint infection from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Results - PJI was diagnosed in 29 patients, whereas aseptic failure was diagnosed in 58 patients. Analysis of sonication fluid using BR-PCR detected bacteria in 27 patients, whereas analysis of periprosthetic tissue by BR-PCR detected bacteria in 22 patients. In 6 of 7 patients in whom BR-PCR analysis of periprosthetic tissue was negative, low-virulence bacteria were present. The sensitivity and specificity values for periprosthetic tissue were 76% and 93%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity values for sonication fluid were 95% and 97%. Interpretation - Our results suggest that sonication fluid may be a more appropriate sample than periprosthetic tissue for BR-PCR analysis in patients with PJI. However, further investigation is required to improve detection of bacteria in patients with so-called aseptic failure.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, HipBacteriaBacteriological TechniquesDNA, BacterialFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain ReactionProspective StudiesProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID27123818
PMCPMC4967274
OpenAlexW2344635230

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.