SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2017
What is a "periprosthetic shoulder infection"? A systematic review of two decades of publications.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimized use and performance of culture for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis: a comprehensive literature review.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic value of preoperative joint aspiration for periprosthetic shoulder infection: analysis of microbiological aspects and preoperative ICM minor criteria.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- How is infection diagnostic criteria for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection reported in literature: systematic review.JSES international · 2025Review
- High infection control rate after systematic one-stage procedure for shoulder arthroplasty chronic infection.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Two-Stage Implantation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Postinfectious End-Stage Glenohumeral Arthritis in Native Shoulders: A Single-Center Cohort Study with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- The role of serum D-Dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Prosthetic joint infections of the shoulder: A review of the recent literature.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Periprosthetic joint infections of the shoulder: A 10-year retrospective analysis outlining the heterogeneity among these patients.Shoulder & elbow · 2022Article
- Is D-dimer a Reliable Serum Marker for Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2021Article
- Prosthetic Shoulder Joint Infection byAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Risk factors associated with periprosthetic joint infection after total elbow arthroplasty.Shoulder & elbow · 2019Article
- Two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty using prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement: minimum three-year follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Preoperative Skin-Surface Cultures Can Help to Predict the Presence of Propionibacterium in Shoulder Arthroplasty Wounds.JB & JS open access · 2018Article
- Bone and joint infection, from prevention to complications.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Preoperative Skin Cultures Predict Periprosthetic Infections in Revised Shoulder Arthroplasties: A Preliminary Report.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhile as many as 50% of revision shoulder arthroplasties are culture positive, a consistent, clinically useful definition of a "periprosthetic shoulder infection" is lacking. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature with respect to (1) the definition of a "periprosthetic shoulder infection", (2) the pre-operative evaluation for possible infection, and (3) the harvesting and culturing of specimens at the time of surgical revision.
methodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we identified 20 studies concerning infection at the time of revision shoulder arthroplasty. The review was registered in the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
resultsAn explicit definition of infection was not present in six studies (27%). Classification systems used for periprosthetic hip and knee infections were used in three studies (14%). Clinical signs and symptoms were used in all definitions, but most studies did not report microbiologic results or culturing practices.
conclusionsSynthesis of the literature on failed arthroplasties with positive cultures is compromised by lack of standardization, leaving surgeons without secure evidence on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions. These decisions would be better informed if authors used a consistent approach in the evaluation of failed arthroplasties with respect to the number and source of specimens submitted, the culture technique, the number of specimens that became culture positive, the bacteria identified, and the bacterial load recovered from the shoulder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This was a systematic review of reports of all levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28224190What 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.