Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32827305›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2020

Periprosthetic Infection After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: a Review.

Erik S Contreras, Travis L Frantz, Julie Y Bishop, Gregory L Cvetanovich

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06379919 (Cutibacterium Acnes Removal by Wound Irrigation With Normal Saline Versus Irrisept During Total Shoulder Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06379919 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Cutibacterium Acnes Removal by Wound Irrigation With Normal Saline Versus Irrisept During Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

TypeinterventionalSponsorOrthopaedic Education and Research Institute (dba Hoag Orthopedics)Ran2024 to 2027Enrolled126ConditionsCutibacterium Acnes ContaminationArmsIrrisept Irrigation, Saline Irrigation Solution Delivery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. From the last 100 to the first 100-outcome after a manufacturer change in reverse fracture arthroplasty.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Preventing Infections in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Preventing and Treating Infection in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Erik S ContrerasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Travis L FrantzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Julie Y BishopDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Gregory L CvetanovichDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Gregory.Cvetanovich@osumc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPeriprosthetic infection is a relatively rare but potentially devastating complication after shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this article is to review the incidence, diagnosis, prevention, and management of periprosthetic infections after reverse shoulder arthroplasty, with a focus on literature published within the last 5 years. RECENT

findingsThe 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection provides us with a framework for the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic infections after shoulder arthroplasty. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher reported rate of infection compared with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Our current diagnostic tests do not appear to be as sensitive when compared with the hip and knee literature. Similar success has been reported with single and two-stage revision protocols, although prospective comparative data are lacking. The significance of unexpected positive cultures during revision arthroplasty remains unclear. We report current diagnostic and therapeutic options for periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Much of the current literature does not distinguish between anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Further high-level studies are warranted to refine these definitions and guide management.

Indexed as

Periprosthetic infectionProsthetic joint infectionReverse shoulder arthroplastyShoulder infection

Identifiers

PMID32827305
PMCPMC7661562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.