ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Do not exchange the spacer during staged TKA exchange!
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical impact of microbiological results in two-stage revision arthroplasty with spacer exchange.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Patient-specific articulating spacer for two-stage shoulder arthroplasty exchange.Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2023Article
- Are Static Spacers Superior to Articulated Spacers in the Staged Treatment of Infected Primary Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the reinfection rate and risk factors for septic failure after two-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infections of primary total knee arthroplasties. Reinfections should be classified as new infection or as infection recurrence after two-stage exchange.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of 60 knees with chronic periprosthetic joint infections. Follow-up information was extracted from the departments electronic database.
resultsThe reinfection rate after a mean follow-up of 35.6 months (1-135) was 20.0%. The only significant risk factor for reinfection was spacer exchange during two-stage exchange (OR = 10.42; p = 0.001). Of the 12 cases with reinfection 6 cases were classified as new infection and 2 as infection recurrence.
conclusionsPatient specific factors for reinfection remain furtive. If a spacer exchange is preformed, the risk of reinfection increases. Culture results indicate that the benefit of spacer exchanges during two-stage exchange is highly questionable, particularly because reinfection is an issue of new infection rather than of infection recurrence.
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.