Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33783636›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021

Comparison of patient reported outcome measures after single versus two-stage revision for chronic infection of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study.

Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala, Christian Klemt, Janna van den Kieboom, Liang Xiong, Young-Min Kwon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Optimizing vancomycin release from novel carbon fiber-reinforced polymer implants with small holes: periprosthetic joint infection treatment.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Venkatsaiakhil TirumalaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Christian KlemtDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Janna van den KieboomDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Liang XiongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Young-Min KwonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. ymkwon@mgh.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTwo-stage revision is the current gold standard treatment for infected total hip arthroplasties (THA) with good clinical outcomes. Single-stage revision THA offers the advantage of only a single surgical intervention, potentially leading to improved functional outcomes. This study aimed to compare the differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications between single and two-stage revision THA for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

methodsA total of 159 consecutive revision THA patients for chronic PJI with complete pre-and post-operative patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) was investigated. A total of 46 patients with single-stage revision THA was matched to 92 patients following two-stage revision THA using propensity score matching, yielding a total of 136 propensity score-matched patients for analysis.

resultsSingle and two-stage revision THA improved PROM scores post-operatively, with significantly higher PROMs for single-stage revision THA (HOOS-PS: 50.7 vs 46.4, p = 0.04; Physical SF 10A: 42.1 vs 36.6, p < 0.001; PROMIS SF Physical: 41.4 vs 37.4, p < 0.001; PROMIS SF Mental: 52.8 vs 47.6, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between both cohorts for reinfection rates (p = 0.81) and 90-day mortality rates (p = 1.0).

conclusionThis study found a demonstrable functional benefit of single-stage revision compared to two-stage revision for THA with chronic periprosthetic joint infection, suggesting that single-stage revision THA may provide an effective alternative to two-stage revision in selected patients with chronic PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipProsthesis-Related InfectionsCohort StudiesHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPropensity ScoreReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomePatient-reported outcome measuresPeriprosthetic joint infectionSingle-stage revisionTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID33783636
OpenAlexW3149843259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.