ArticleInternational orthopaedics2017
Chronic periprosthetic hip infection: micro-organisms responsible for infection and re-infection.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2017. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Improved Ilizarov method for management of deformity and ulceration on foot and ankle of spina bifida.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Article
- Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Partial component-retained two-stage reconstruction for chronic infection after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: results of sixteen cases after five years of follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Two-stage revision after total knee arthroplasty.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to delineate the infecting micro-organisms identified at the first-time revision for infected THA, analyze pre-operative versus intra-operative findings, as well as intra-operative ones against re-infection micro-organisms. MATERIAL AND
methodsMicrobiological laboratory findings were studied in 73 patients (mean age, 51.93 ± 10.9 years) with chronic periprosthetic hip infection pre-operatively and intra-operatively. Forty-three patients had a two-stage revision THA while 30 patients were treated with a modified resection arthroplasty using the Ilizarov apparatus. Re-infection developed in 29 cases. Its microbial species were identified.
resultsPre-operative findings on micro-organisms coincided 50.7 % with the intra-operative ones. Bacterial growth in the intra-operative tests was detected in 72 (98.5 %) cases. Gram-positive single genus infection was identified in 35 patients (48 %); microbe associations were present in 33 patients (45 %). Staphylococcus species prevailed. Gram-negative infection was detected in 5.5 % of cases. One case (1.5 %) did not have any microbe growth. Re-infection happened in 10 cases (23.2 %) in a two-stage revision THA. In the resection arthroplasty group, early re-infection was observed in 63.3 % of cases. Among a total of 29 re-infection cases, staphylococcus species were identified in 19 cases, present either in associations or as single germs.
conclusionIntra-operative microbiological tests at the first-time revision for infected THR detect a reliable spectrum of micro-organisms to assess microbial resistance to antibiotics, develop treatment protocols, and for prognostic purposes. Preventive measures at primary THR and strategies to fight periprosthetic infection and reinfection should be targeted on staphylococci.
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.