Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33002069›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Conservative two-stage revision with primary components of infected total hip arthroplasty: An analysis of survival, clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Giorgio Burastero, Mattia Alessio-Mazzola, Luca Cavagnaro, Francesco Chiarlone, Giuliana Carrega, Andrea Giorgio Capello, Stefano Lovisolo, Lamberto Felli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Giorgio BurasteroBone Infection Unit, Department Orthopaedic and Traumatology 2, Santa Corona Hospital, Pietra Ligure (SV), Italy.
Mattia Alessio-MazzolaDepartment of Surgical Sciences (DISC), Orthopaedic Clinic, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6741-3713
Luca CavagnaroBone Infection Unit, Department Orthopaedic and Traumatology 2, Santa Corona Hospital, Pietra Ligure (SV), Italy.
Francesco ChiarloneDepartment of Surgical Sciences (DISC), Orthopaedic Clinic, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Giuliana CarregaInfectious Diseases and Septic Orthopaedic Centre (MIOS), Ospedale Santa Maria di Misericordia, Albenga (SV), Italy.
Andrea Giorgio CapelloDepartment of Surgical Sciences (DISC), Orthopaedic Clinic, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Stefano LovisoloDepartment of Surgical Sciences (DISC), Orthopaedic Clinic, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Lamberto FelliDepartment of Surgical Sciences (DISC), Orthopaedic Clinic, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITOspedale Santa Corona · ITOspedale Santa Maria · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Few studies provide an analysis of conservative two-stage revision of hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and its impact on final outcome. A conservative revision is defined when soft tissues and bone quality enable the use of primary prosthetic components. Data of patients treated for chronic hip PJI who underwent two-stage revision between 2009 and 2016 and had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were collected. Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiological and microbiological data were retrieved and analysed. Clinical and functional outcome, survival, mortality, eradication, reinfection and re-revision rates within subgroups of patients with primary components and revision components are reported herein. A total of 148 patients underwent two-stage hip exchange with a mean follow-up of 55.6 ± 23.1 months and a mean age at surgery of 64.3 ± 12.7 years. Forty-four percent of patients underwent conservative revision. The mean HHS significantly improved from 40.6 ± 9.4 points to the final value of 87.8 ± 10.5 points (p = .002), and the mean OHS went from 20.3 ± 3.8 points to 40.3 ± 5. points (p< .001). Patients who were treated with primary components or isolated revision stems in the second stage had a significant reduction in surgical times (p< .001). The mortality rate for all causes of death was 6.8%, the eradication rate was 89.9%, the reinfection rate was 4.7% and the reoperation rate was 7.4% without differences between conservative and non-conservative revisions. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for total hip arthroplasty (THA) PJI is a good strategy that provides satisfactory results, high eradication rates and no further need for revision. The conservative two-stage revision in patients with adequate bone stock represents a feasible option with good results and survival rates.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis-Related InfectionsRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33002069
PMCPMC7529346
OpenAlexW3089663477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.