Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651331›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019

Linezolid versus daptomycin treatment for periprosthetic joint infections: a retrospective cohort study.

Masahiro Sawada, Kenichi Oe, Masayuki Hirata, Hiroshi Kawamura, Narumi Ueda, Tomohisa Nakamura, Hirokazu Iida, Takanori Saito

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI).The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masahiro SawadaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Kenichi OeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan. oeken@hirakata.kmu.ac.jp.
Masayuki HirataDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Hiroshi KawamuraDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Narumi UedaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Tomohisa NakamuraDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Hirokazu IidaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Takanori SaitoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Kansai Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLinezolid (LZD) and daptomycin (DAP) are predominantly used to target gram-positive pathogens; however, treatment effectiveness and adverse reactions for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and adverse reactions of LZD and DAP for PJIs.

methodsThis study retrospectively evaluated 82 patients between June 2009 and December 2017, to compare the effectiveness of LZD (group L, n = 39) and DAP (group D, n = 43) for treatment of PJIs harboring gram-positive microorganisms. Surgical options used with LZD or DAP therapy included implant retention, implant removal, and a shift to another appropriate antibiotic. Infection control was defined as not requiring implant removal after the final treatment.

resultsGram-positive pathogens were isolated from 72% of group L and 70% of group D patients, respectively. Whole infection control rates against gram-positive pathogens in groups L and D were 79% and 77%, respectively. Furthermore, infection control rates were 94% and 58% in group L and 75% and 80% in group D, without and with implant removal, respectively. Significantly higher clinical success rates and lower adverse event rates were observed in group D, including higher red blood cell and platelet counts and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels.

conclusionsAlthough the effectiveness of LZD and DAP was equivalent in terms of infection control rates for refractory PJIs with gram-positive pathogens, DAP therapy significantly decreased CRP levels and caused fewer adverse events than LZD treatment.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsCohort StudiesDaptomycinFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLinezolidMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis-Related InfectionsRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsDaptomycinLinezolidAdverse event ratesDaptomycinImplant retentionLinezolidPeriprosthetic joint infection

Identifiers

PMID31651331
PMCPMC6814137
OpenAlexW2981837800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.