ArticleInternational orthopaedics2020
Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty on infection outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Does a positive culture correlate with the volume of synovial fluid inoculated into blood culture bottles for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection?European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Why revision of total hip arthroplasty fails: a retrospective consecutive cohort study of 963 patients.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin does not reduce the risk of subsequent infection after aseptic total hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a preliminary study.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Article
- Antibiotic prophylaxis before tissue biopsy has no effect on culture results in presumed aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2024Article
- Single-stage total hip arthroplasty after failed fixation of proximal femoral fractures: an increased risk for periprosthetic joint infections?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- The Causal Relationship Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Mechanical Complications of Prosthesis After Arthroplasty: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Do Not Postpone Revision of Worn Conventional Liners in Ceramic-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty: A New Dramatic Failure.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is no consensus regarding systematic screening for infection in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The rationale for systematic intra-operative samples is to increase the sensitivity of latent infections detection, which may require specific treatment. However, the incidence of occult infection in revision THAs is not precisely known. As such, the aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of occult infection in presumed aseptic revision THAs and identify associated risk factors.
methodBacteriological samples from 523 aseptic THA revisions performed for five years were analyzed. Revisions performed for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or clinical suspicion of PJI were excluded. Microbiological cultures were performed using tissue samples in 505 cases (97%), synovial fluid in blood culture vials in 158 (30%), and in dry tubes in 263 (50%). Implants were sent for sonication in 12 cases (2.6%). The mean number of microbiological samples per patient was 3.6 (range, 1-15). Histology samples were collected for 300 patients (57%).
resultsThe incidence of occult infection was 7% (36 cases) and contamination 8% (42 cases). Among occult infections, the primary reasons for revision were dislocation (42%), aseptic loosening (25%), fracture (19%), and others (14%). The infection rate in the dislocation group was significantly higher than that of other reasons for revision (p < 0.001). Among the patients determined with PJI, the revision THA was performed less than a year after primary in 19 (53%).
conclusionThe incidence of occult PJI justifies systematic intraoperative sampling. A short time between primary arthroplasty and revision or an early postoperative dislocation is a factor to suspect infections.
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.