ArticleInfection2017
The influence of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers on the risk of reinfection after septic two-stage hip revision surgery.
Article in Infection, 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.
- Cure rate of infections is not an argument for spacer in two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Trial
- Nanocomposite orthopaedic bone cement combining long-acting dual antimicrobial drugs.Biomaterials advances · 2023Article
- Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Bisphosphonates for delivering drugs to bone.British journal of pharmacology · 2021Review
- Two-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss: Results from 182 cases.Orthopedic reviews · 2020Article
- Hot topics and cold lecture halls: the ECCMID 2019.Infection · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was the evaluation of possible outcome differences of patients undergoing two-stage hip exchange with antibiotic-loaded spacers, compared to patients without an interim spacer implantation.
methodsWe evaluated 46 patients undergoing two-stage hip revision surgery. Twenty-five patients received an interim ALS. Additional to a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, a competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence function for re-revisions due to infection accounting for death as a competing event.
resultsNine patients (seven non-ALS vs. two ALS) had to undergo re-revision surgery due to reinfection of the hip joint. The non-ALS group showed a risk of re-revision of 19% (95% CI 5-38%) at 12 and 24 months and 30% (95% CI 12-51%) at 36 months. The group with ALS implantation displayed a 0% risk of re-revision surgery in the first 36 months. The Gray test revealed a significant difference in the cumulative incidence between both observed groups (p = 0.026).
conclusionOur findings suggest that ALS implantation significantly reduces the risk of reinfection after two-stage hip revision surgery.
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.