ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021
Cutibacterium acnes infections in revision surgery for persistent shoulder complaints: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The predictive value and reliability of ultrasound-guided synovial aspiration and biopsies for diagnosing periprosthetic shoulder infections.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Reverse rhino sign as a radiological sign of low-grade infected reverse shoulder arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- A high prevalence of Cutibacterium acnes infections in scoliosis revision surgery, a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma.Spine deformity · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Nisin and LL-37 Antimicrobial Peptides as Tool to Preserve Articular Cartilage Healing in a Septic Environment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow-grade Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) infections after shoulder surgery usually result in unexplained complaints. The absence of clinical signs of infection makes the incidence unclear and underreported. This study aimed to determine the incidence of C. acnes infections in patients with artificial material and unexplained persistent shoulder complaints. We hypothesized that the incidence of C. acnes infections would be higher in patients with artificial material. Risk factors and associations between culture time and contaminations/infections were also assessed. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients with and without artificial material undergoing revision shoulder surgery for persistent complaints after primary surgery and the suspicion of a low-grade infection. Three-six cultures were taken in all patients. C. acnes infection incidence was determined and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors. The association between time to culture growth and infections/contaminations was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test.
results26/61 (42.6%) patients with and 14/33 (42.2%) without material had a C. acnes infection. Age (OR 0.959; 95% CI 0.914-1.000) and BMI (OR 0.884; 95% CI 0.787-0.977) were risk factors. Time to C. acnes culture positivity was not different between infections and contaminations.
conclusionThe incidence of C. acnes infections was 42.6% in patients with artificial material and 42.2% in patients without artificial material. Younger age and lower BMI are risk factors. Low-grade C. acnes infections should be considered in patients with unexplained persistent complaints following shoulder 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.