ReviewDer Orthopade2020
[Risk factors and management strategies for early and late infections following reconstruction with special tumour endoprostheses].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse events and tolerability of long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy for periprosthetic joint infection: a prospective cohort study.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2026Article
- Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Prosthetic Joint Infection in Mega-Arthroplasty Following Shoulder, Hip and Knee Malignancy-A Prospective Follow-Up Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clinical presentation and diagnosis of acute postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII).Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of megaprostheses occur in about 10% of all cases. The criteria for PJI are defined by the "Musculoskleletal Infection Society" (MSIS) and apply to both primary arthroplasty and megaprostheses. MANAGEMENT: The management strategies of PJI in megaprostheses are dependent on the duration of infection and the maturity of the bacterial biofilm. Implant retention with an exchange of the mobile components is only possible in the presence of an immature biofilm. In the presence of a mature biofilm, a one- or two-stage exchange must be performed. A complete exchange of all endoprosthetic components should be performed, if possible, since a partial retention of isolated components results in inferior treatment success rates.
resultsThe highest success rates are achievable with two-stage exchanges. Multiple risk factors such as skin necrosis, postoperative haematoma, prolonged wound secretion and operative times ≥ 2.5 h are risk factors for the development of PJI in megaprostheses. Knowledge regarding these risk factors allows for an identification of high-risk patients and early management of PJI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32016498What 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.