Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33991236›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022

Periprosthetic joint infection is the main reason for failure in patients following periprosthetic fracture treated with revision arthroplasty.

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

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. 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
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Janna van den KieboomBioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Venkatsaiakhil TirumalaBioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Liang XiongBioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Christian KlemtBioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Young-Min KwonBioengineering Laboratory, Department 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

introductionPeriprosthetic fracture after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA; TKA) can be challenging, requiring open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), revision, or both. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and risk factors associated with re-revision surgery following failed revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture.

methodsA total of 316 consecutive THA patients and 79 consecutive TKA patients underwent a revision for periprosthetic fracture, of which 68 THA patients (21.5%) and 15 TKA patients (18.9%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common indication for hip and knee re-revision was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 28 THA patients (46.6%) and 11 TKA patients (47.8%).

resultsThe complication rates of THA and TKA revision were 24.3% and 25.3% respectively, and 35.0% and 39.1% respectively for re-revision surgery at an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Periprosthetic joint infection was the most common indication for THA and TKA re-revision (46.7%; 47.8%) and third revision surgery (15.0%; 13.0%). Factors significantly contributing to an increased risk of THA and TKA re-revision included revision with plate fixation and revision with combined ORIF.

conclusionThe overall complication rate of THA and TKA re-revision surgery following failed revision surgery for periprosthetic fracture was higher than of revision surgery. The most common indication for re-revision and third revision was periprosthetic joint infection. These findings may assist surgeons in the management and preoperative counseling of patients undergoing THA and TKA revision surgery for a periprosthetic fracture to optimize the outcomes for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneePeriprosthetic FracturesProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesPeriprosthetic fracturePeriprosthetic joint infectionRe-revisionRevisionTotal joint arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID33991236
OpenAlexW3161727866

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.