ArticleJSES international2020
Infection control and outcome of staged reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of shoulder infections.
Article in JSES international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- One- vs. Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Infection Provides Comparable Functional Outcomes to Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Patient-specific articulating spacer for two-stage shoulder arthroplasty exchange.Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2023Article
- The role of synovial fluid aspiration in shoulder joint infections.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Defining a Synovial Fluid White Blood Cell Count Threshold to Predict Periprosthetic Infection after Shoulder Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of septic arthritis, caused by either hematogenous seeding, injections, or surgery, can be challenging. Staged reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with temporary implantation of an antibiotic-loaded spacer is widely accepted but still discussed controversially. This study investigated the shoulder-specific bacterial spectrum, infection control rate, functional outcome, and infection-free survival rate after staged RSA in the mid- to long-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that staged RSA would show a high infection-free survival rate.
methodsA total of 39 patients treated with staged RSA for primary septic arthritis (n = 8), secondary infection (n = 8), or periprosthetic infection (n = 23) were retrospectively included. The infection control rate was calculated based on cultures taken intraoperatively at spacer removal and RSA implantation. Infection-free survival was defined as no revision due to infection. The minimum follow-up period for functional outcome assessment was 2 years (n = 14; mean, 76 months; range, 31-128 months).
results
conclusionStaged RSA implantation was confirmed to be a reliable treatment option for primary, secondary, and periprosthetic infections of the shoulder. The infection control rate and infection-free survival rate are satisfactory. However, patients and surgeons must be aware of functional impairment even after successful treatment of infections.
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.