ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2016
Eradication rates, risk factors, and implant selection in two-stage revision knee arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying potential predictive indicators for reimplantation timing in two-stage revision: a meta-analysis and system review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in second-stage surgery in joint prosthesis infection treated with two-stage exchange. A multicenter case-control study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of the CD 15 focus score in two-stage revision arthroplasty of periprosthetic joint infections : High specificity in diagnosing infect eradication.Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2022Article
- Predictors of failure of two-stage revision in periprosthetic knee infection: a retrospective cohort study with a minimum two-year follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Two-stage exchange Arthroplasty for knee Periprosthetic joint infection exhibit high infection recurrence rate in patients with chronic viral hepatitis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Systematic review of risk prediction studies in bone and joint infection: are modifiable prognostic factors useful in predicting recurrence?Journal of bone and joint infection · 2021Review
- One-Stage Arthroplasty or Revision for Seronegative Infections in Hip and Knee.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Article
- Reinfection and re-revision rates of 113 two-stage revisions in infected TKA.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2020Article
- Predictors of Treatment Failure for Hip and Knee Prosthetic Joint Infections in the Setting of 1- and 2-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- CORR Insights®: Late Reinfection May Recur More Than 5 Years After Reimplantation of THA and TKA: Analysis of Pathogen Factors.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
- Serum biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infections.Bone & joint research · 2018Article
- Do not exchange the spacer during staged TKA exchange!Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-stage revision (TSR) knee arthroplasty is an established treatment, but failure to control infection still occurs in 4-50 % of cases. The aim of this study was to assess the infection eradication rate, risk factors for failure, and the clinical outcome after two-stage revision knee arthroplasty.
methodsThis retrospective study included 59 patients who had undergone at least one two-stage revision procedure due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Demographic data, comorbidities, types of implant, and complications were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify risk factors for failure.
resultsThe infections were controlled in 55 patients (93.2 %). The follow-up period was 4.1 (±2.7) years. Infection control was achieved after the first TSR in 42 patients (71.2 %) and after the second TSR in 13 (76.5 %). The percentage of arthrodesis procedures in patients with infection control increased from 16.75 % after one TSR to 69.2 % after two TSRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio 1.22; 95 % confidence intervals, 1.07 to 1.40; p = 0.004) and smoking (OR 21.52; 95 % CI, 2.60 to 178.19; p = 0.004) as risk factors for failure.
conclusionsTwo-stage revision protocols can achieve acceptable results even after a second procedure. It is still unclear whether the choice of implant influences failure rates. Risk factors for failure after two-stage revision were identified. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed in order to support these findings and identify further risk factors. To reduce failure rates, programs should be established to treat or minimize risk factors in patients with PJI.
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.