Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32405759›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020

Management of infected extremity endoprostheses: a systematic review.

Nicholas Nucci, Aaron Gazendam, Kyle Gouveia, Michelle Ghert, David Wilson

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas NucciNorthern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.
Aaron GazendamDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Center for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, St. Joseph's Hospital, McMaster University, Room G522, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. aaron.gazendam@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2615-4919
Kyle GouveiaMichael G. Degroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Michelle GhertDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Center for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, St. Joseph's Hospital, McMaster University, Room G522, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada.
David WilsonDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Center for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, St. Joseph's Hospital, McMaster University, Room G522, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada.
St. Joseph's Hospital · CAMcMaster University · CANOSM University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoprosthetic reconstructions have become increasingly common in the setting of significant bone loss. Indications include revision arthroplasty, trauma, and reconstruction in the setting of primary malignancies or bony metastases. Although the use of endoprostheses has several advantages, they carry a high risk of infection. The purpose of this review is to determine the success rates of surgical management of infected endoprostheses.

methodsThe authors searched databases for relevant studies and screened in duplicate. Data extracted included overall infection rate, timing of infection, follow-up, isolated pathogen and operative treatment strategy, and subsequent failure rate. The overall quality of the evidence with the Methodological Index for non-randomized studies criteria.

resultsA total of 16 studies and 647 patients met the inclusion criteria. 400 patients had operative management and reported outcomes. Failure rates of patients undergoing debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) were 55.1%. Failure rates of patients who underwent one-stage revision were 45.5%. Failure rates of patients undergoing two-stage revision were 27.3%. Failure occurred at 31.4 months (range, 0-228) postoperatively.

conclusionsRates of periprosthetic joint infection remain high in endoprosthetic reconstructions. Although DAIR procedures were found to have a low success rate, they remain a reasonable option in acute infections given the morbidity of staged revisions. There is a lack of comparative data in the current literature and the heterogeneity and low level of evidence does not allow for between group comparisons of results.

Indexed as

Prosthesis-Related InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDebridementExtremitiesHumansProstheses and ImplantsReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsEndoprosthesisMegaprosthesisPeriprosthetic joint infectionRevision

Identifiers

PMID32405759
OpenAlexW3024200638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.