ArticleInternational orthopaedics2020
Sonication in shoulder surgery: is it necessary?
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of sonication fluid cultures from prosthetic components in periprosthetic joint infection: an updated diagnostic meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Sonication protocols and their contributions to the microbiological diagnosis of implant-associated infections: a review of the current scenario.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Review
- High infection control rate after systematic one-stage procedure for shoulder arthroplasty chronic infection.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of the present study was to determine whether sonication yields greater sensitivity when compared with the traditional tissue culture in detecting peri-implant infections in shoulder surgery.
methodsIt is a retrospective study that includes 99 shoulder surgeries with implants explanted. The inclusion criteria required at least four tissue cultures, sonication of the material explanted, and a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients were classified according to the definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections. The classifications are definitive infection, probable infection, possible infection, and unlikely infection.
resultsAmong the 99 surgical procedures, 31 were considered definitive infections, 11 possible/probable infections, and 57 unlikely infections. Considering the cases with a definitive infection, the sensitivity of the tissue culture was 87.09% and the sensitivity of sonication stood at 80.64% (p = 0.406). Analyzing the cases with a definitive infection and those having a possible/probable infection together and comparing them with those with unlikely infection, the sensitivity of sonication was 80.4% and the sensitivity of the tissue culture came to 91.4%. The specificity of the sonication was 98.1% and the specificity of the tissue culture was 99.6%.
conclusionThe sensitivity of sonication in shoulder surgery (80.64%) is not superior to the sensitivity of the tissue culture (87.09%). Specificity remains high with both methods, being 98.1% in the sonication group and 99.6% in the tissue culture. Sonication brings no benefit to the detection of shoulder per-implant 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.