Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33118642›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2021

Risk of reinfection after two- or multiple-stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers.

Florian Amerstorfer, Martina Schober, Thomas Valentin, Sebastian Klim, Andreas Leithner, Stefan Fischerauer, Mathias Glehr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Surface Coatings on Biomedical Magnesium Alloys.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Risk of reinfection after two- or multiple-stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Florian AmerstorferDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3402-6589
Martina SchoberDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Hospital St. Josef Braunau, Braunau am Inn, Austria.
Thomas ValentinSection of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sebastian KlimDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andreas LeithnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2598-2325
Stefan FischerauerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6842-4526
Mathias GlehrDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3633-3240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of superficial vancomycin coating (SVC) in two- or more-stage exchange procedures of prosthetic knee joint infections. We hypothesized that spacer treatment with SVC result in lower reinfection rates than conventional spacers after prosthetic reimplantation. Our secondary aim was to determine the demographic and treatment factors associated with reinfection rates. This retrospective cohort study compromised 96 cases with prosthetic knee infections. Twenty-four cases were treated with a temporary SVC spacer and 72 cases with conventional spacers. Prosthetic reinfection occurred after a median observation period of 1.7 ± 4.0 years in 24 cases (25%). The prevalence of having a reinfection was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (13% [3 cases] in the SVC group vs. 29% [21 cases] in the conventional spacer group [p = .104]). In seven cases (7.3%), two in the SVC group (8.3%) and five (6.9%) in the conventional spacer group (p ≥ .999), histological, respectively microbiological evaluations from the intraoperative specimens revealed persistent infection at the second stage. Nevertheless, in all seven cases no significant higher risk of periprosthetic reinfection was observed during follow-up (p = .750). Our secondary investigation of cofactors revealed that spacers additionally stabilized by nails were significantly associated with a 3.9-fold higher hazard ratio of sustaining a reinfection of revision prosthesis (p = .005).

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis-Related InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansKnee JointReinfectionReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsVancomycincoatingfailed knee arthroplastyspacertwo-stage revisionvancomycin

Identifiers

PMID33118642
PMCPMC8451795

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.